unionfs と mount の union オプションの違い ― 2008年05月04日 12時31分51秒
-o union
の違いが Re: [ANN] 8-CURRENT, RELENG_7 and RELENG_6 have gotten latest ?unionfs improvements で紹介されている。これを読んだ時に、これらの二つの違いが分かった。-o union
は未だに試したことは無いが、後学の為に簡単に訳しておく。
> Btw, I was wondering: is unionfs related in any way with -ounion > option of mount_*? No. The union mount option (-o union) is completely separate from UNIONFS, although it can be used to achieve a somewhat similar effect. It depends on your requirements whether it is sufficient or not.
-o union
と unionfs は別物だ。
union オプションは FreeBSD が始まってから壊れていたことはない。しかし、unionfs は長い間壊れていた。ゴトウさん達によって修正された。> I was told long time ago that -ounion is even > more broken than unionfs. That's wrong. The union mount option was _never_ really broken. I'm using it for almost as long as FreeBSD exists. However UNIONFS was broken for a long time (along with NULLFS and UMAPFS). NULLFS has been fixed some time ago, UMAPFS was abandoned apparently, i.e. nobody showed up to fix it, and UNIONFS was pretty much completely overhauled by Daichi GOTO and his team. I would now regard it as stable.
大きな違いは以下の通りだ。> Though, those two features seem to do very > similar thing and I think that -ounion option is pretty useful. Yes, it is useful. The biggest differences are:
unoin マウントオプションはファイルシステムを他のディレクトリの上にマウントする。unionfs は既にマウントされているファイルシステムを他のディレクトリ上に重ね合わせてマウントする事が出来る。- The union mount option newly mounts a filesystem on top of an arbitrary existing directory tree, while UNIONFS mounts another representation of one existing directory tree on top of another one. That means UNIONFS does the same as NULLFS, but unlike NULLFS it does not hide the underlying directory tree.
残念ながら、何を意味しているのか良く解らず、翻訳できない。- When using the union mount option, only the entries in the root directory show through from the "lower" file system. When using UIONFS, _all_ entries in _all_ directories are visible (unless masked by an identical entry in the upper file system, of course).
union オプションの実装は unionfs に比べて単純だ。- The implementation of the union mount option is rather simple has rather low overhead. UNIONFS is much more complex and has some overhead for certain operations, especially when files and directories have to be created automatically in the upper layer.
最近のコメント