Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965129AbWIED3f (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:29:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965128AbWIED3f (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:29:35 -0400 Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]:24516 "EHLO cs.columbia.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965126AbWIED3e (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2006 23:29:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22][RFC] Unionfs: Stackable Namespace Unification Filesystem From: Shaya Potter To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Pavel Machek , Josef Sipek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk In-Reply-To: <1157425739.5510.40.camel@localhost> References: <20060901013512.GA5788@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20060903110507.GD4884@ucw.cz> <1157376506.4398.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157425739.5510.40.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:28:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1157426923.23523.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, X-Seen-By filter1.cs.columbia.edu Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1622 Lines: 33 On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 23:08 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:28 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 11:05 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > - Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is > > > > currently unsupported. Any such change may cause Unionfs to oops and it > > > > can even result in data loss! > > > > > > I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Even root user should be unable to > > > oops the kernel using 'normal' actions. > > > > As I said in the other case. imagine ext2/3 on a a san file system > > where 2 systems try to make use of it. Will they not have issues? > > Yes, but you are deliberately ignoring that NAS systems like CIFS or NFS > don't, and neither do clustered filesystems. Users of those systems > don't expect them to have issues with that sort of scenario. No. I just view them as a backing store type system. Yes, if you use unionfs in an nfs context you better be sure about how the nfs backing store is going to be used (i.e. read-only or only used by a single user), just like if you put ext2/3 on a san block device, you better be sure that either its only used read-only or only used by a single user. Yes, unionfs enables you to use the backing store "incorrectly", but so do ext2/3 or any other non clustered file system when used on a SAN. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/