Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:02:10 +0200 | From | Jens Benecke <> | Subject | Re: FS union |
| |
On Wed, Jun 16, 1999 at 08:32:57AM -0400, Lou Grinzo wrote:
> One possibility that I don't think anyone has mentioned is giving the > user or programmer finer-grained control over the name space for the > unioned FS's. In other words, there could easily be times when you would > want to make just certain files in the underlying FS take precedence in > the name space.
Something I would be _very_ thankful to see is a per-user basis of unions, i.e. I mount several directories 'over' each other (not necessarily on different devices) and each user sees only the 'lowest' and 'his/her' directory entries, using a copy-on-write basis for the 'lowest' directorie's files.
This way, you could save a LOT of space and work when being a file server for a big windows network using _large_ applications that are not network capable, i.e. always store their user configuration files in $APPDIR and not $HOME. Nowadays, I solve this using hard links and giving each user his/her own directory (quite simple for Samba) but I think unions could be a better approach.
Also, mounting a CDROM over a /tmp directory might enable you to run apps directly from CD, i.e. a kernel build or something. This would save a lot of symlinking and tweaking.
-- _ciao, Jens_______________________________ http://www.pinguin.conetix.de
Anyone comfortable with using Linux shall use it. | "I'm afraid Linux has a Anyone wanting to tell other people what they | year-429496 problem" should be using can go work for Microsoft. | -- Kernel mailing list
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |