[Techteam] NAND full issue

[Ton van Overbeek]

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).

HTH

Ton van Overbeek