[Techteam] NAND full issue

[Deepak Saxena]

On Jul 25 2008, at 20:00, Daniel Drake was caught saying:
> So unionfs is the "formal bug fix for 8.2 going forward", or is it a 
> Uruguay-specific thing?
> 
> unionfs will involve a kernel change. Are we planning to shift them from 
> 2.6.22 to 2.6.25 where unionfs has been included, or are we going to 
> backport unionfs to 2.6.22?
>
> Also, I am a little wary of unionfs, I have used it in the past and 
> found it to be buggy and unreliable. It may be better now, but we should 
> be cautious.

I've done an analysis of the UFS code and it may be possible to 
have a standalone unionfs module w/o changes to core kernel. See [1]
for my email sent to UFS maintainers and list. My concern is that
by forking the code this way, we're introducing another variable.

However...  Erik has been using AUFS[2] as UFS was crashing badly and 
not allowing sugar to boot. AUFS is completely standalone and requires
no changes to the deployed kernel.  This is also non-upstream so we should
run it through some form of stress test in our desired configuration.  

~Deepak

[1] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/unionfs/2008-July/005895.html
[2] http://aufs.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Deepak Saxena - Kernel Developer - dsaxena at laptop.org