devicemapper and stateless? (was Re: who needs unionfs!, was Re: [Fedora-livecd-list] experimental unionfs and initramfs code)
Bill Nottingham
notting at redhat.com
Tue Apr 25 18:33:18 UTC 2006
Toshio Kuratomi (toshio at tiki-lounge.com) said:
> > > Or maybe they are playing devicemapper tricks that I've never even
> > > suspected...
> > >
> > > Very interesting, and very worth watching...
> >
> > So apparently... You no longer need unionfs to have a union.
> >
> > Very interesting... (if my guestimation and being too lazy to read up on
> > devicemapper are not leading to my misunderstanding)
> >
> I just saw this go by on planet.fedoraproject.org::
> http://blogs.gnome.org/view/markmc/2006/04/25/0
>
> notting or jeremy: Is markmc working on something like this as part of
> stateless or is the devicemapper work he's doing totally unrelated?
It's related, but it's not part of the readonly-root support. Using
something like device-mapper for that means you'd have to use a block
device.
What LFS appears to be doing is creating a sparse loop device on tmpfs,
and using that as the block layer. It's a interesting idea, and bears
investigation.
Bill
More information about the Fedora-livecd-list
mailing list