Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932316AbXAISDR (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:03:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932317AbXAISDR (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:03:17 -0500 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.235]:12957 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932316AbXAISDQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:03:16 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Orfo7K2zD2lQqoJWlAKmkxKl8vB4AuGhyT1M7ANm1z9WcWeUjSVYqGFHvlrgFP7Hrbw1fojmVO8zQSkFwa8pbiOv7iRiATwYBfq3RutNMzkhWrgIAG9Lisy24klJW3BhbKUM0F2gzIni4Uu4tZib6xw3fdemogbnJ6m1tiPY4DM= Message-ID: <5d96567b0701091003i6a98f8fep60d1a0b9c6c586d1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 20:03:15 +0200 From: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" To: "Erez Zadok" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200701091728.l09HSxQI009160@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070109095345.GB12406@infradead.org> <200701091728.l09HSxQI009160@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3472 Lines: 73 On 1/9/07, Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <20070109095345.GB12406@infradead.org>, Christoph Hellwig writes: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:03:35PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: > > > However, I must caution that a file system like ecryptfs is very different > > > from Unionfs, the latter being a fan-out file system---and both have very > > > different goals. The common code between the two file systems, at this > > > stage, is not much (and we've already extracted some of it into the "stackfs > > > layer"). > > > > I think that's an very important point. We have a chance to get that > > non-fanout filesystems right quite easily - something I wished that would > > have been done before the ecryptfs merge - while getting fan-out stackable > > filesystems is a really hard task. In addition to that I know exactly > > one fan-out stackable filesystem that is posisbly useful, which is unionfs. > > Christoph, on our Unionfs mailing list, we've been asked numerous times for > additional functionality. People asked for load balancing based on CPU > time, rtt, latency, space available, etc. People asked for replication > functionality. People asked for failover. And more. Some users have > become so motivated, that they developed and maintain their own Unionfs > patches to support rudimentary load-balancing and replication. > > Our answer had always been the same: those features are nice, but have no > place in Unionfs. That's why we've created RAIF, exactly to give all those Erez hello my name is raz. Just for my better understanding , raifs stands for raided file system ? what sort of raids do they have ? thank you raz > who wanted "just one more thing added to Unionfs" another f/s to play with. > Who knows, maybe one day, some of those features may wind up in a Unionfs-NG > or as composable VFS plugins. But for now, we've given the community RAIF > so they can play with it, experiment, enhance, whatever. RAIF is newer > than Unionfs and for now we're just accumulating experience with it. > > In other words, I think there are other fan-out file systems of use other > than Unionfs. If and when Unionfs made it into mainline, I'll guarantee you > that you'll have users asking for other fan-out functionality. That is why I > think it is prudent to wait and gather more experience with stackable file > systems in Linux, before embarking on a more generic functionality layer, > which would support non-fanout as well as fanout extensions. > > > Because of that I'm much more inclined to add VFS asistance for this > > particular problem (unioning) instead of adding complex infrastructure > > to solve a general problem that people don't benefit from. > > I'd love to see VFS assistance for Unioning in particular and for stacking > in general. But again, I prefer to gather some practical experience first, > and then try to generalize any new VFS-level helper functionality. > > Sincerely, > Erez. > - > 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/ > -- Raz - 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/