Rob van der Heij wrote:
On 7/25/06, John Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In all of this, isn't the UNIONFS still a live deal? If as many client
systems as possible use a set of backing F/Ss that are Read Only,
wouldn't
Yes, it's mostly working. I have done quite a lot with it on s390. Yo
On 7/25/06, John Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In all of this, isn't the UNIONFS still a live deal? If as many client
systems as possible use a set of backing F/Ss that are Read Only, wouldn't
Yes, it's mostly working. I have done quite a lot with it on s390. You
probably don't want to
In all of this, isn't the UNIONFS still a live deal? If as many client
systems as possible use a set of backing F/Ss that are Read Only, wouldn't
the local copy ONLY consist of changed files? And wouldn't the local copy
(I'm not sure, UNIONFS _does_ handle having a R/W copy on a hard disk,
right?
