"Simon Sasburg": > Hmmm, i see yes, having to do all those lookups would indeed be expensive too. > I guess it then depends on the sizes of the files you work with as for > which method is better.
Agreed. > As my files are regularly >300mb in size, for me this is clear (rename > in unionfs taking <1sec vs >1 min in aufs), but this is not a > 'general' case i suppose. I suppose so too. But I am suprised that it took so long time, and I think I could understand why you wrote as far from optimal. > Well actually i just meant disk space, not deleting a 300mb file costs > me 300mb of disk space. But i can see how the current approach indeed > makes it simpler to keep consistency. Additionally, the whiteout is a zero-sized hardlink. So it will not consume a new inode and space for the file data. > Possible, but that kind of defeats the purpose of using a union file system Agreed. But your case doesn't seem to be general. It is worth to try renaming directly for you. > Maybe add an example of a symptom of this? Like "Renaming large files > can take longer than expected because aufs may move them to that > writable branch in some cases." Thank you for your suggestion. I shall consider about that. Junjiro Okajima ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
