On Friday 16 May 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote: > how does it compare to funionfs?
Compare the sources yourself ;) Funionfs has all code in a very few files, only a very few comments and then some of these in French... On the other hand, unionfs-fuse is well structured, has many comments, uses lots of static functions, etc (well I wrote large chunks of the cow code, so I naturally think the code looks good ;) ). However, I tested funfionfs myself some time ago and it wasn't running sufficiently stable (this was shortly before I started to work on unionfs-fuse). Again on the other hand, unionfs-fuse is sufficiently stable to run on diskless workstations (used by my former university group for /etc and /var) and diskless HPC compute nodes (we are presently using it on most of our clusters for all system directories). Both of these setups do require large uptimes and an rock stable unionfs implementation. Btw, I'm not going to package the released version and also for now not Radeks main branch, since both branches have some severe bugs. Radek is presently also too busy to merge my branch (http://podgorny.cz/~bernd/hg/hgwebdir.cgi/radek-trunk-bernd-merge). Cheers, Bernd PS: I know, funionfs has one advantage to unionfs-fuse, it has a control utility. However, for our needs a stable unionfs implementation is by far more important than this tool. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
