[Techteam] NAND full issue

Ton van Overbeek tvoverbeek at gmail.com
Sat Jul 26 07:58:00 EDT 2008

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Deepak Saxena <dsaxena at laptop.org> wrote:
> 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/

This might be old news, but Knoppix (the original linux live CD)
changed from unionfs to aufs
some years ago with good results. I suppose you could ask Klaus
Knopper about his
experiences with the reliability of aufs. See www.knopper.net (in German) or
www.knoppix.com (in English).


Ton van Overbeek

More information about the Devel mailing list