Phillip Lougher wrote:
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 10:15 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
What do people think about using unionfs for persistence (and perhaps
Copy-On-Write in general) in Fedora LiveCDs?
The big question today is the same as the big question around using
unionfs for anything has been for a while now -- what's the actual
likelihood of an implementation ever being both upstream and stable.
In Ubuntu unionfs has been used in the liveCD for a number of releases.
The trick is to get a Unionfs that works and stick with it, for that
reason the Ubuntu kernel has stayed with Unionfs 1.2 and 1.4 for
a long time. Unfortnately we've upgraded to Unionfs 2.1.1 because
Unionfs 1.x doesn't handle NFS filesystem branches correctly in
recent kernels.
Having moved to 2.1.1 I expect a number of issues may arise with
the Ubuntu liveCD, and in fact I'm currently investigating an issue that
may be caused by the move to 2.1.1.
So the stability of Unionfs still appears to be a major issue for
anyone using it.
Thanks for the war stories. Bummer. I had been hoping that the answer
would be a little more like "yeah, with the widespread usage in ubuntu,
and the 2.0 rewrite, and the 8 months in -mm, it's now rock solid".
But maybe it'll get there soon. I am interested to hear what davej says
and if it'll make it into fedora anytime soon, even given current lack
of rock-solidness. The more I think about it, the more I like my idea
of having an initramfs that supports both dm and unionfs for cow...
-dmc
--
Fedora-livecd-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-livecd-list
