FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-03-2012, 10:04 AM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default unionfs or aufs, available somewhere?

Am 03.01.2012 11:26, schrieb Magnus Therning:
> Is either of them easily available somewhere?
>
> I'd like to use the `union-type=` option of `schroot`, but so far it
> looks like I'll have to get a new kernel from AUR and compile aufs3
> myself to set it up. Is neither of these rather useful filesystems
> available pre-built somewhere?

None of these filesystems work with an unpatched kernel. None of these
are particularly fast or stable. None of these keep up well with current
Linux development.

The new and shiny overlayfs has still not been merged into 3.2 and union
mounts development has stalled for a long time.

It is 2012 now and the whole situation still sucks. We switched to
(block-based) device mapper snapshots in archiso, which is stable, but
far from optimal. This does not completely replace unioning and is
likely not a good solution to use with schroot.
 
Old 01-03-2012, 01:51 PM
Magnus Therning
 
Default unionfs or aufs, available somewhere?

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:04, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 03.01.2012 11:26, schrieb Magnus Therning:
>> Is either of them easily available somewhere?
>>
>> I'd like to use the `union-type=` option of `schroot`, but so far it
>> looks like I'll have to get a new kernel from AUR and compile aufs3
>> myself to set it up. *Is neither of these rather useful filesystems
>> available pre-built somewhere?
>
> None of these filesystems work with an unpatched kernel. None of these
> are particularly fast or stable. None of these keep up well with current
> Linux development.
>
> The new and shiny overlayfs has still not been merged into 3.2 and union
> mounts development has stalled for a long time.
>
> It is 2012 now and the whole situation still sucks. We switched to
> (block-based) device mapper snapshots in archiso, which is stable, but
> far from optimal. This does not completely replace unioning and is
> likely not a good solution to use with schroot.

Ouch, that sucks. I'll just revert to making copies and wasting space then

/M

--
Magnus Therning * * * * * * * * * * *OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4
email: magnus@therning.org * jabber: magnus@therning.org
twitter: magthe * * * * * * * http://therning.org/magnus
 
Old 01-03-2012, 03:59 PM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default unionfs or aufs, available somewhere?

On Jan 3, 2012 8:51 AM, "Magnus Therning" <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
>
> Ouch, that sucks. I'll just revert to making copies and wasting space
then

If performance isn't that enormously critical I've used FUSE based union
file systems in the past with success ... it worked well for my needs.

--

C Anthony [mobile]
 
Old 01-03-2012, 04:44 PM
Magnus Therning
 
Default unionfs or aufs, available somewhere?

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:59:19AM -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2012 8:51 AM, "Magnus Therning" <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
>>
>> Ouch, that sucks. I'll just revert to making copies and wasting
>> space then
>
> If performance isn't that enormously critical I've used FUSE based
> union file systems in the past with success ... it worked well for
> my needs.

Do you know if it works with `schroot` though?

/M

--
Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4
email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org
twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus

I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
C++ in mind.
-- Alan Kay
 
Old 01-03-2012, 08:39 PM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default unionfs or aufs, available somewhere?

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:59:19AM -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 2012 8:51 AM, "Magnus Therning" <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ouch, that sucks. *I'll just revert to making copies and wasting
>>> space then
>>
>> If performance isn't that enormously critical I've used FUSE based
>> union file systems in the past with success ... it worked well for
>> my needs.
>
> Do you know if it works with `schroot` though?

oh right, sorry i spaced off that you had mentioned the particular app
you needed it to work for -- no, it doesn't appear to support it
out-of-the-box. although, since `schroot` appears to just use mount
with some custom -o opts, you could probably hack it in with a
`mount.<union-or-aufs>` helper, or even patch schroot pretty easily if
you really wanted ;-)

looks like there are some btrfs options too, not sure it works for
your use case, but you could format a file with btrfs and mount on
loopback (man pages seem to suggest snapshotting will be used, and
loopback FS are supported)

btw, i believe i used this:

http://podgorny.cz/moin/UnionFsFuse

... appears to be in AUR as well.

--

C Anthony
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org