Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

jemimah · Joined: 26 Aug 2009 Posts: 4309 Location: Tampa, FL

Darn! I was hoping someone actually had a fix for unionfs. Trying to get it to work under 2.6.33, since aufs seems to be having an issue with corrupting the save file. Mad

BarryK · Posted: Sat 13 Mar 2010, 02:57 Post subject:

I subscribe to the unionfs mail list, and it's a dead project.

I was forced to leave unionfs some time ago as bugs weren't getting fixed. For quite a long time now, people have posted to the mail list with problems, but no reply.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily mean the project is dead. The developers have done this before, ignore posts, while they are in fact still working on new code. Well, they are ivory tower academics.

EDIT: I just looked at the project web site, they are still releasing new versions, so it isn't dead. Just seems like it from monitoring the mail list.

amigo · Joined: 02 Apr 2007 Posts: 1757

But unionfs is now in the kernel, right? So development will have moved there. Most projects don't maintain external development branches once they become part of the kernel -alsa is an exception.

nooby · Joined: 29 Jun 2008 Posts: 9385 Location: SwedenEurope

if union fs is part of the kernel for all linuxes then the Ubuntu people have no excuse for not allowing an ubuntu save on ntfs as puppy can do.

Slackware derivatives can save on NTFS too. Knoppix and DSL maybe can. I have not tested it. They are not good at recognizing new hardware.

Puppy is unique in how easy it is to set up a frugal install with one subdirectory for each puppy and it takes only some seconds to a few minutes to add an install of a new puppy together with the others while doing that for ubuntu would be very tedious and with no save.

So if unionfs is in the kernel they should be able to add save to NTFS? Maybe they don't want to?

BarryK · Posted: Sat 13 Mar 2010, 09:34 Post subject:

jemimah · Joined: 26 Aug 2009 Posts: 4309 Location: Tampa, FL

I may have found a user-contributed patch for the set-attr bug that's crashing me at the moment - also mounting some tmpfs on /dev/shm fixes the worst of the crashes.

jemimah · Joined: 26 Aug 2009 Posts: 4309 Location: Tampa, FL

My initial tests seem to confirm that mounting /dev/shm and applying the attached patch do make using unionfs a possibility. I need to run it for a few days to make sure, but I think I'm going to switch Puppeee over since I have no idea what's causing the problem with aufs on 2.6.33 and I really want the updated network drivers.