Erez Zadok wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasily Tarasov writes:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 03:24 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasily Tarasov writes:
Hello everybody,
Can you tell me, please, is there ETA for unionfs 1.6 (against 2.6.20
kernel)? It's marked as "coming soon" on the web-site...
Thank you,
Vasily.
Vasily, we've done even better: we've back-ported Unionfs 2.0 to 2.6.20 (as
well as 2.6.19, 2.6.18, and 2.6.21). See
<http://unionfs.filesystems.org/>. Please let us know how well these
back-ports work for you.
Cheers,
Erez.
Thank you, Erez. However we needed Unionfs 1.0. :)
The thing is that we're creating OpenVZ (openvz.org) LiveCD, that will
able to boot from several kernels: 2.6.9, 2.6.18 and 2.6.20. The LiveCD
uses unionctl tool and it works great for 2.6.9/2.6.18 kernels, because
we use unionfs 1.0 for these kernels. But unionfs 2.0, that is only
available for 2.6.20 kernel, doesn't support ioctls that unionctl
produces. :)
Do you mean the branch-management ioctls? If that's the only difference, we
can work around it easily (wrapper scripts, for example). Or did you write
programs that use the ioctl(2) syscall directly?
The branch-management ioctls in 1.0 were really racy; the remount-based
branch-management is not just race free, but also the "approved" way that
the kernel folks prefer.
Unionfs 2.0 has so much new stuff, not to mention fixes; perhaps you'd
consider using 2.0 for kernels 2.6.18 and higher, and special case 2.6.9?
Does this mean that unionfs 2.0 should work for 2.6.9 kernel ???
Or maybe I'll now have to see if we can backport the 2.6.18 code to 2.6.9?
That's going to be an interesting adventure. :-)
I'm still looking forward for a stable unionfs version for 2.6.9 RHEL kernel! Any work on
this would be very much appreciated!!
Cheers,
Urs
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/
[email protected]
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
