Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@xxxxxx> writes: > hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > >> Goswin von Brederlow: >>> > Miklos Szeredi: >>> >> The most interesting is the directory and metadata deltas, which do >>> >> make a delta-fs like implementation much more effective and nicer as a >>> >> dumb union type filesystem. Mind, unionfs and aufs are rapidly >>> >> acquiring non-union traits, like inode number storage, virtual hard >>> >> links (not to speak of whiteouts). Which makes them all the more >>> >> hackish, I much prefer a conceptually clean solution. >> ::: >>> Use a filename -> inode indirection and delta based on inode >>> numbers. Although the you also have to consider the device id in case >>> there are multiple filesystem mounted in your read-only branch. So >>> filename -> (dev, inode). >> >> Agreed. >> While Miklos seems to dislike the inum table, it is necessary I think. > > Only if you want to fully support hardlinks. Do you know of anything > that really needs true hardlinks? storeBackup, for example (but I guess that's nothing you'd run on a unionfs). Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C -- 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
