Re: cachefs on linux

Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 02:53:46 EST

> Anyway, linux also does not have unionFS. If it was that big of a deal,
> someone would write it. As it is, it's a whizbang no one cares about enough.

BSD has had a UnionFS for a while now, by the way.

There are a lot of things we _could_ add to filesystems, E.G.:

* Appending to a read-only filesystem on a separate volume

* File versioning

* Transparent, variable compression

* Format conversion, (I.E. write a png file to a filesystem, and it is
                           automatically visible as half a dozen other
                           formats, without them actually existing on
                           the disk)

* Priorities, (E.G. temp files could have a bit to indicate that we
                    don't really care how long they remain in
                    write-cache, instead of flushing them along with
                    other more-important-to-get-to-the-oxide data)

* WORM mode, (I.E. start at block 1 and use blocks sequentially, never
                   re-using blocks - makes a tape somewhat usable as a
                   block device)

Some of these are available in some form or another already. There is
plenty we can do, given enough time :-).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST