[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ShadowFS (status)

From: Neal H Walfield
Subject: Re: ShadowFS (status)
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:44:04 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.18i

> > Let us take a look at what others have done.  E.g.:
> > 
> >  -
> Have you actually read the discussion?


> It doesn't seem to be helpful to us.
> Busy is a concept that is defined by translators themselve.  We hold (or
> should hold) ports to the underlying filesystems, so they will all be
> "busy".

They talk about what stat should return and a few other issues that I
felt were related.

> If you just wanted to point out that there are other union mounts
> implementations, well, that's true.

Admittedly, that was one of my goals.

> The BSD guys have one, too.

From what I understand, theirs is a bit different in so far as they have
a live filesystem backed by a static, read-only, file system, for, e.g.,
having the root filesystem on a cd and making a small ramdisk where
changes are stored.

Attachment: pgp8DQ88DEI9E.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]