[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hiding nodes with unionmount
Re: Hiding nodes with unionmount
Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:19:28 +0200
KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.30-hh2; KDE/4.2.98; x86_64; ; )
Am Dienstag, 4. August 2009 07:20:05 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov:
> > You need chroot/bin/bash, I think.
> I tried putting bash into the chroot environment, but it didn't help.
> Also, I tried invoking chroot only with the new root directory (since
> the man page promises it should run the default shell), but it didn't
> work either. I guess I'm doing something wrong, so I'll ask tomorrow
> at the meeting :-)
Please keep me posted on what it requires!
I would assume the new root needs a full environment (that's what Gentoo
needs: All programs, libs, etc. But in Gentoo I also have to bind /dev and
/proc into the chroot environment)
> > As soon as the "subhurd needs root" issue is solved, it should allow
> > every normal user to boot his own system.
> AFAIK, Zheng has made some progress in this area.
Maybe you can ask tomorrow how far he got.
> You'd better ask antrik or Zheng. They seem to posses the required
I forwarded the question to antrik.
> > We should be careful with talking about that, though: VCS filesystems
> > have been ridiculed almost as efficiently as the Hurd :)
> I hope we will not be banned from this list for such talks :-)
I don't think so - it's not like we're putting out public news blurps with
"the Hurd can (maybe someday) do ridiculous feature X".
> Frankly speaking, I didn't even know about VCS filesystems, to tell
> nothing of their being ridiculed :-(
I learned about them, when I dived into Mercurial. It seems people wanted to
do them for a long time now, but I think they failed at the "when should we
Luckily we can answer that for private users (corporations have far harder
backup needs): We commit when we feel like it, and not at every write.
Also we now have far more efficient and flexible VCS systems than ever before.
> > The difference here would be that we could define fixed steps for
> > committing, for example logout.
> > It could even mean that the system isn't saved till logout. All changes
> > could be in memory, until we logout and commit.
> Sounds reasonable for desktop use in regions where power shortages are
The sole problem would be saving a big file could require quite much memory -
but that could be fixed by also committing when the size of the temporary
files becomes too high.
> > If memory seems to dangerous, they could be in the (persistent) git
> > staging area... I think my spider sense is tingling :)
> What do you mean by ``git staging area''?
In git we can add changes without committing them, and they are stored
somehow, so changing the file again doesn't change the commit until we do an
explicit "git add <file>".
I don't really know how it works internally, but I think it should be possible
to use it as shortterm-change-storage.
> (You must feel comfortable at a computer by having eight extremities
> ;-) )
eight extremities but only one keyboard *gg*
> > The only problem would be that the necessary diskspace for the base
> > system would be more than doubled. With todays 1TiB disks this shouldn't
> > hurt too much, though. Userdata could still be in simple user-dirs (for
> > optimization).
> I think this is trivially implementing by the usual technique of
> setting / and /home on separate partitions.
ouch, seems I suffered from the "why take the simple path, when we can choose
the hard one"-disease ;-)
> I'm afraid I'll once try to do something like this :-) I think that
> would be exciting :-)
It's also quite convenient once you set it up :)
> > Just remember to exclude the Movies ;)
> Keep them on a separate Movie Partition :-D
> Hm... This sounds interesting, but also looks like the package
> manager is required to perform the functions of a real VCS. AIUI, you
> would like the package manager to actually store snapshots of files,
> which is very much like a VCS. In other words, the package manager
> would need to be tuned to work like a VCS; and then, why not simply
> use a VCS already?
That's what I began thinking when I read your post.
> I'd rather doubt that: the package manager will have to store
> snapshots anyway, and snapshots will consume space, too.
The package manager just needs to keep lists of files, so it can notify a
filterfs which files to hide. Everything else is in the filesystem.
> Also, I'm
> inclined to think that it is much easier to tune a VCS to consume less
> space than to make a package manager work like a VCS.
The only way I know to avoid doubling the diskspace (for mostly incompressible
files) would be to retrieve the files live from the VCS on each access, and I
fear that's quite slow compared to traditional fielsystems.
> > $ (Filter all files in hidefiles from the user environment)
> Aha, I see :-) That's what I was expecting. This sequence of commands
> is something which should definitely take place in the environment we
> are talking about, but I'd rather keep file management itself for the
> VCS, while expecting of the package manager to do package management.
I think that's the easier and safer way.
> I'm not sure whether it will save *space* (you anyway need to store
> some snapshots for each user), but it will definitely save resources,
> since no special virtualization software is necessary.
You can safe space when users only do few modifications to the base system.
> OTOH, note that such a technique is also less secure: if a user does
> some nasty thing (like a fork bomb), they bring down the whole system,
> with all other users' environments.
I think that's why the Hurd needs a resource accounting framework like the one
of viengoos. With that in place a user shouldn't be able to disturb the other
users experience anymore.
If I understand it correctly, that is.
> > size_pkg_man = base_size + all changed files
> > size_vcs = base_size + base_history + all diffs (user-history)
> Could you please explain what ``base_history'' is?
It the size of the base files + all their history.
> If you refer to the fact that doing a commit to VCS produces a new
> history entry, then I'd say that could do commits ``in place'', that
> is, undoing the top commit first, and then committing the new version
> (I hope I'm making myself clear). In this case size_vcs = base_size +
> all changed files , just like size_pkg_man.
That would mean, we wouldn't be able to use simple branches for the users
A change in the base system should propagate to the branches, and when we
change the base, the diffs of the users don't fit anymore. That's why I think
that we won't be able to easily avoid carrying the history with us (though we
could cleanup from time to timeby saving per-user snapshots of the whole
system (the environment they see) and diffing these and the base system to
create new diffs).
> You're right :-) Let's hope that the dreams will come true (and work
> on bringing them to reality in the meantime ;-) )
If you like prosa, you can read one of my dreams on my website:
Besides: Did you see the FSF petition to free the Amazon kindle of DRM?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.