Re: shadowfs
Norbert Nemec wrote:
> Question is, whether read-only is the only thing we want to go for. It would
For some stuff I'm pretty sure it is. For all the stuff I had pictured
in my head it is. On the other hand, a transparant-redundancy (to coin
a term, which probably isn't a good one :)) filesystem would certainly
have its uses.
> be absolutly neat, if we had a way to layer filesystems in a absolutely
> transparent way, so one could do things like have a read-only system as base
> (maybe NFS-shared by several computers?) and a read-write system on top that
> takes any changes you make and perhaps copies of frequently used files for
> better performance.
>
> Imagine a pre-installed system distributed on DVD (several GB in size) that
> you can use just as any normal system, since it writes only the changes on a
> fairly small partition (or even a ramdisk)
>
> It might even serve for test-installing some program: Just layer the
> complete file-system with a empty read-write system, do the installation,
> test it and cleanly dump all the changes afterwards with no risk.
>
> I have no idea whether that justifies the trouble, but at least it sounds
> hurdish, doesn't it?
--
Rhamphoryncus
adamolsen@technologist.com
"I'd like to live in a world were I could consider the
death of 50 schoolchildren in an crash signifigant."
Reply to: