On 09/12/2017 01:16 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> Diverting away from the original topic, what issues with overlayfs and >> btrfs? > As mentioned, I thought whiteout support was missing, but if you're > using it without issue, I might be wrong.
Whiteout works fine. Upper and lower layers and working directory are all on btrfs subvolumes. Snapshotting seems fine. >> I'm using btrfs to create 'base' operating system containers (btrfs) and >> then using overlayfs for a few 'upper' containers for specific >> applications, so the upper parts of the overlays contain only the config >> and data files and I can apply OS updates only on the lower ones. >> >> I do note that changes in the 'base' os can take time to propagate to >> the upper containers and I'm probably not being sensible in not stopping >> the upper containers when updating the lower ones. This is also does >> not seem to be what overlaysfs is intended for. However, for my light >> usage it generally works OK and is useful to me. > Actually, this is pretty well in-line with one of the intended use cases > (it was mostly designed for efficient multiple instantiation of Docker > or LXC containers). The other big use case is 'live' systems that only > retain state while powered on, like most install images. OK, I only spotted the latter use case when reading up, apart from one website which seemed to mention using it for containers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
