Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934447Ab1CYCcm (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:32:42 -0400 Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:36354 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934394Ab1CYCcg convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:32:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IhNvXyMW94KNyyi5KvelRsN15vjXvZegDPjUAMt2RVKmMgI+S0O07Aw74coykUOKV2 P1AX5mkTbpq/8C+uTZmv5lefqLqlO9lYLzSqbUoLLECiTGcyNHWjPbZrCCTw83LJDH02 3nX6IoOwGeeLOBsHTz0Qv61IbhgDYB/rBcah4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20110324224047.GN2356@decadent.org.uk> References: <1300845590-14184-1-git-send-email-valerie.aurora@gmail.com> <20110324224047.GN2356@decadent.org.uk> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:32:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/74] Union mounts version something or other From: Sedat Dilek To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Valerie Aurora , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, LKML , Felix Fietkau , hch@lst.de, Miklos Szeredi , "J. R. Okajima" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2415 Lines: 55 On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:38:39AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > [...] >> Whuzzz up with AUFS? >> Even there where massive changes to VFS and FS in 2.6.38+, there is an >> adapted kernel patch around (for example see Debian's 2.6.38 linux-2.6 >> packages in experimental branch). > > Do not cite the Debian kernel team as supporting aufs.  It is included > only because Debian Live needs some kind of union filesystem, and only > until that appears in-tree. > Debian is using AUFS - that is a fact! That is exactly what I mean... as there is no *official* (and working! and really used) union-filesystem from kernel-side. Diverse distributions (and especially the embedded area) use AUFS (as overlay) and SquashFS (for compression) as an *unofficial* working solution for years. including Debian. SquashsFS and hopefully SquashFS-XZ is in the kernel, but not AUFS. So, I am interested in (a new discussion and) re-thinking what is the number #1 choice in that area. BTW, in the meantime Ric Wheeler asked for a comparison between Union-mounts and OverlayFS [1]. Let's see and read. >> From my POV OverlayFS is the new star at the skyline and should be >> promoted as 1st choice, now. > [...] > > This thread is for technical review, not marketing. > My POV is clear - I already gave some technical arguments contra union-mounts. An official and working(!) solution is needed and "promoted" from the big five in Linux kernel (filesystem) development. A decision what is the (next and new preferred?) standard union-filesystem in the kernel-world. Now, there is a new problem for union-mounts as one of its main maintainer stopped working on it. Even OverlayFS is young, it is already used as a working(!) solution in OpenWRT. People do not need and want a never-ending "technical preview" for years, they need and want a working(!) solution, that is/was mostly AUFS chosen *unofficially* (and remember rejected into mainline). Personally, I did not see/read union-mounts used by any distro or in the embedded world. - Sedat - [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg43345.html -- 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/