On Thursday 2012-09-20 22:48, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >> Miklos, how do you think about this? >> <http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123938533724484&w=2> >> Do you think UnionMount is totally gone? > >Unionmount provides almost the same functionality as overlayfs. The big >difference between the two is that unionmounts resides 100% in the VFS >while 95% of overlayfs is plain filesystem code. I think that's the >biggest advantage: filesystem code is easier to maintain, has less >impact on core complexity, etc. The big advantage is actually that the unioned view is in a separate namespace (vfsmount). >Aufs provides much better filesystem semantics than either unionmounts >or overlayfs. But that does come at a price: > >aufs: 98 files changed, 29893 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >overlayfs: 22 files changed, 2981 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) In two years time when sufficient user requests have come in, overlayfs is likely to have wrong as much. -- 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
