On Sat, Jan 24 2015, Oliver Welter <m...@oliwel.de> wrote:
> Am 24.01.2015 um 14:04 schrieb sf...@users.sourceforge.net:
>>
>> shawn wilson:
>>> I see its not mature, another example of kernel politics, and questions. I
>>> read the thread and the linked message again before writing this - I'm
>>> guessing the aufs maintainer (who is also on this list IIRC) also doesn't
>>> have a solid list of feature differences (and maybe that's my answer?).
>>
>> Ah, you want to know the feature diffs.
>> As far as I know, all things overlay(fs) can do are done by aufs too.
>> For the systemcall programming level, some of my past posts to LKML may
>> be helpful. But most of them are merged in the overlayfs document I
>> think.
>
> For those who consider to move towards overlayfs, it might be more interesting
> what features that aufs provides are missing in overlayfs.
>
I tried to use overlayfs with 3.18.1, but it didn't work for me. While
the documentation clearly say that all readable filesystem are supported
for lower filesystem (we need NFS), there's a nice FIXME line in the
code that claims otherwise... (it uses the same restrictions check for
upper and lower filesystems).
Moreover, overlayfs can't seem to simply mount two filesystems
together. It needs a workdir on the upper filesystem but outside the
upper mount. This complicates the mount process for our needs.
As such, I don't believe that overlayfs is mature enough (and it simply
doesn't work for our needs). We're staying with aufs, its simple
configuration works for us.
Yair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
