Quoting Dietmar Maurer (dietmar@xxxxxxxxxxx): > > >>> Dietmar Maurer wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Daniel, > > >>>> > > >>>> I think we should have several options for the root storage: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1.) simply use the host filesystem (like Openvz) > > >>>> > > >>>> - special quota support is needed (simfs?) > > >>>> > > >>>> - quota support depends on ext3 fs, so this only works for > > >>>> local attached storage (does not work on NFS) > > >>>> > > >>>> - LVM snapshots are slow, because the snapshot includes all > > >>>> container > > >>>> on that filesystem. > > >>>> > > >> I'm looking forward to the btrfs, tux3, and nilfs snapshotting > > >> capabilities. > > >> > > > Interesting, especially the nilfs. > > > The COW file systems is missing in the linux kernel. Do you think > the > > > btrfs has a chance to go to mainline ? > > > > We've been using NILFS (v1) for 2 years already with Zap, and it works > > quite well. We had to make slight (trivial) changes to be able to > > control it nicely for c/r purposes. > > NILFS, BTRFS, ... maybe provide solution for snapshots, but quota > support > is still missing (we need quotas on subdirectories)? Haven't thought it through 100%, but does it not suffice to be able to specify quotas per user-namespace? It won't help with NFS... > And a FS independent solution would be great, so that it works on top of > NFS too. > > So UnionFS looks good, but it does not provide real snapshots (using > base + incremental change looks clumsy for our purpose). I am also not > sure > if quota works on UnionFS? > > - Dietmar _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers