On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>> Tim Harder wrote:
>>>
>>> It is the big advantage of overlay that it is implemented in
>>> kernel and does not involve any time-consuming checks during
>>> norm
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2017-09-24 23:59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-libs/dfxml20170924-10:28 jer c3a4bc32dcc
dev-ruby/activeresource 20170923-06:33 graaff0e1b42f100c
dev-ruby/rails-observers
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>> Tim Harder wrote:
>>
>> It is the big advantage of overlay that it is implemented in
>> kernel and does not involve any time-consuming checks during
>> normal file operations.
>
> Why would you expect containers to beh
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:29 PM, James McMechan
>wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:43 PM, James McMechan
>>> wrote:
# now create a separate mount namespace non-persistent
>>
W dniu pią, 22.09.2017 o godzinie 23∶43 +, użytkownik James McMechan
napisał:
> Hello,
> I thought a example of how a overlay sandbox could work was in order.
>
> ###
> # load the overlayfs filesystem for this test
> modprobe overlay
>
> # make the directories for the test
> mkdir -p /var/tmp
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Tim Harder wrote:
>
> It is the big advantage of overlay that it is implemented in
> kernel and does not involve any time-consuming checks during
> normal file operations.
>
Why would you expect containers to behave any differently? Either
Tim Harder wrote:
> On 2017-09-23 19:59, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> A read-only container
>
> I doubt bind mounts will scale
>
> As has been mentioned before, a different way would be to write some
> sort of FUSE fs
The problem with both, containers and FUSE, is performance.
(For containers with thou
