On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Hall, Ken (GTS) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Most of the "stateless" implementations I've seen seem to rely on "bind > mounts", but that seems to be a bit of a hack. "Union" mounting, such > as "Unionfs" look like it would be a cleaner approach, but I can't find > out if there's a workable implementation of that. Any ideas? > > I've pulled the unionfs patch, but I'm reluctant to go to the trouble of > maintaining yet another custom kernel module. Last time I looked at unionfs was probably 3 years ago. It still had some functional issues, but some of those may have been addressed since then. I initially used it for my "Penguins on a Pin Head" project. One of my my concerns back then was the extra CPU time spent in dealing with the unionfs layers. That is not an issue on dedicated hardware because you don't notice a few percent extra CPU when the data must come from disk or NFS mounted devices. Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
