On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 23:08 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:28 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 11:05 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > - Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is > > > > currently unsupported. Any such change may cause Unionfs to oops and it > > > > can even result in data loss! > > > > > > I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Even root user should be unable to > > > oops the kernel using 'normal' actions. > > > > As I said in the other case. imagine ext2/3 on a a san file system > > where 2 systems try to make use of it. Will they not have issues? > > Yes, but you are deliberately ignoring that NAS systems like CIFS or NFS > don't, and neither do clustered filesystems. Users of those systems > don't expect them to have issues with that sort of scenario. No. I just view them as a backing store type system. Yes, if you use unionfs in an nfs context you better be sure about how the nfs backing store is going to be used (i.e. read-only or only used by a single user), just like if you put ext2/3 on a san block device, you better be sure that either its only used read-only or only used by a single user. Yes, unionfs enables you to use the backing store "incorrectly", but so do ext2/3 or any other non clustered file system when used on a SAN. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
