On Nov 04 2015, Cameron Boehmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> But what would be the advantage of simply mounting the local file system
>>>> somewhere else?
>>>
>>> E.g., I would like a user to be able to mount this unionfs at ~/ and feel
>>> confident that the fs process could crash, the network or remote service
>>> could go away at any moment, and the files they’ve been interacting with
>>> will still be there on the local disk, exactly where they were left.
>>
>> That sounds rather dangerous. So you want your file system to
>> self-unmount when it looses network connectivity?
>
>
> No, it’ll just keep operating locally and queuing up operations to send to
> the remotes when they come back.
You've missed the point. The question was why you'd want to mount the
local file system and the union file system at the same path. If the
union file system is not unmounted, it does not matter where the local
file system is mounted.
>> You would also need a watchdog to unmount the file system in case it
>> crashes without unmounting itself.
>>
>> But even if you did all that, applications that already opened files or
>> directories on the unionfs would still hang or crash.
>
> That’s true for any filesystem, no? I.e., try not to crash.
Again, then why worry about where the local fs is mounted?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s3ql" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
