Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:59 am, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
>   
>>    You are talking about UnionFS here. It should be a good project to
>> port the FreeBSD
>>    version of UnionFS along with a set of external patches that fix
>> existing shortcomings.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure, I don't know anything about UnionFS. I'll need to look into 
> that. It seems more related to layering different devices, in the sense of 
> memory, optical, disk, etc...I was thinking of just layering the changes to 
> the root filesystem. So, let's say a person replaces sendmail, the system 
> would store information so that at boot time, it will place a symlink that 
> pointed to the new binary, which would get queried at boot time. At least 
> this is how I was thinking about it.
>   

   UnionFS does exactly what you mentioned. It is a fan-out fs similar 
in some respects
   to cachefs and can merge multiple filesystem branches and make them 
look like one
   filesystem tree. Of course there are rules to handle duplicates etc. 
One thing it can do
   is merge a read-only tree with a read-write area. So any writes to 
files in the read-only
   tree causes that file to be copied to the read-write area and updated.

   All Linux LiveCDs uses UnionFS layered over the read-only CDROM and 
merged
   with a small ramdisk for the write capability. This way all 
read-write rootfs contents
   including /etc, /var etc reside on the CDROM resulting in a very 
small ramdisk.

Regards,
Moinak.

> Before that point, to be able to store system configuration that would 
> normally be stored in /etc/*.conf files (or similar) and store that into SMF, 
> using the XML.
>
> So, I guess 2 different pieces, one that would layer the configuration 
> changes 
> to the root filesystem and store them into SMF.
>
> Then be able to layer any filesystem changes on top of that.
>
> In the middle is a read-only root filesystem, or at the bottom, depending on 
> how you like to look at it.;-) Somehow I was thinking to use the ZFS ACL for 
> this piece.
>
>   


Reply via email to