> > So perhaps unionfs isn't the best option for the next generation LTSP? > > There hasn't been movement on an upstream union mount solution in years. > unionfs definitely has its problems, but LTSP isn't a very demanding client, > and Knoppix is using it successfully for simple cases. > > Petter, if you'd like to submit a patch to provide an optional traditional > symlink+ramdisk alternative configuration in the packages, that's OK with > me. probably better than a symlink+ramdisk approach would be a tmpfs+bind mount approach, as it requires no (or few) tweaks of the NFS filesystem, and also works with standard debian kernels. i also recently discovered that you can bind mount individual files on top of other files... recently explored several ways to use unionfs with initrd-netboot-tools and lessdisks, as well as some of this bind-mounting of individual. i'd still like to explore ways that we can coordinate ltsp and lessdisks development(at least in the context of debian and ubuntu), since there is so much overlap, now... live well, vagrant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature