On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 11:51 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasily Tarasov writes: > > > > On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 03:24 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasily Tarasov writes: > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > > > Can you tell me, please, is there ETA for unionfs 1.6 (against 2.6.20 > > > > kernel)? It's marked as "coming soon" on the web-site... > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Vasily. > > > > > > Vasily, we've done even better: we've back-ported Unionfs 2.0 to 2.6.20 > > > (as > > > well as 2.6.19, 2.6.18, and 2.6.21). See > > > <http://unionfs.filesystems.org/>. Please let us know how well these > > > back-ports work for you. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Erez. > > > > Thank you, Erez. However we needed Unionfs 1.0. :) > > > > The thing is that we're creating OpenVZ (openvz.org) LiveCD, that will > > able to boot from several kernels: 2.6.9, 2.6.18 and 2.6.20. The LiveCD > > uses unionctl tool and it works great for 2.6.9/2.6.18 kernels, because > > we use unionfs 1.0 for these kernels. But unionfs 2.0, that is only > > available for 2.6.20 kernel, doesn't support ioctls that unionctl > > produces. :) > > Do you mean the branch-management ioctls? If that's the only difference, we > can work around it easily (wrapper scripts, for example). Or did you write > programs that use the ioctl(2) syscall directly? > > The branch-management ioctls in 1.0 were really racy; the remount-based > branch-management is not just race free, but also the "approved" way that > the kernel folks prefer. > > Unionfs 2.0 has so much new stuff, not to mention fixes; perhaps you'd > consider using 2.0 for kernels 2.6.18 and higher, and special case 2.6.9? > > Or maybe I'll now have to see if we can backport the 2.6.18 code to 2.6.9? > That's going to be an interesting adventure. :-) > > Erez.
Hello, I meant the branch-management ioctls. And at the moment I'm in the process of creating script for (re-)mounting unionfs 2.0 without these iotctl on 2.6.20 kernel ;) If it'll be ok, we probably will use unionfs 2.0 on 2.6.18 too. However I don't think that the races during branch-management ioctls are severe problem in case of LiveCD. We only add branches once during boot: no other actions ;) I tell you why we need 2.6.9. OpenVZ community supports now three kernels: 2.6.9-rhel4-based 2.6.18-based 2.6.18-rhel5-based 2.6.20-based. And some people prefer to use 2.6.9-rhel4-based kernels on the rhel4/centos4 nodes, because they consider the system to be more "solid". Thank you for your help I'll inform you about the progress. ;) Vasily. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
