Adding more persistent disk images

[proctor]

by "copy the /UNIONFS counterpart" do you mean the entire system as opposed to "only the changes?" on my test system /UNIONFS consists of around 2GB data, whereas /KNOPPIX-DATA is only 140MB....

is there a better way to do what i am trying to do (use the persistent overlay image knoppix-data.img on a read-only media)?

sincerely,
proctor

[kl522]

by "copy the /UNIONFS counterpart" do you mean the entire system as opposed to "only the changes?" on my test system /UNIONFS consists of around 2GB data, whereas /KNOPPIX-DATA is only 140MB....

is there a better way to do what i am trying to do (use the persistent overlay image knoppix-data.img on a read-only media)?

sincerely,
proctor

Sorry it wasn't clear to me what you are trying to accomplish. But I am only saying that if you copy /KNOPPIX-DATA but omitting the dot-wh-dot files, you will have inconsistent packages.

[proctor]

well this is very valuable information to have!

what happens when the dot-wh-dot files are left intact is that when the init system tries to mount the tarred structure into the existing overlay, the dot-wh-dot files conflict/interfere with their already existing counterparts in the UNIONFS system.

do you know of a workaround for this issue?

proctor

[proctor]

hi,

after looking in more detail at aufs it seems to me that using the tarred /KNOPPIX-DATA (really a tarred mounted /KNOPPIX/knoppix-data.img) with removed dot-wh-dot files should not disrupt an aufs file system because the tarred system is not overlaid into the UNION and so therefore not merged in the same fashion that aufs uses: they are simply copied into the UNION, into the aufs.

it seems to me that this is actually the preferred method, and not my patch (at http://www.knoppix.net/forum/threads...t-image-on-dvd).

would anyone disagree with this?

proctor

[kl522]

hi,

after looking in more detail at aufs it seems to me that using the tarred /KNOPPIX-DATA (really a tarred mounted /KNOPPIX/knoppix-data.img) with removed dot-wh-dot files should not disrupt an aufs file system because the tarred system is not overlaid into the UNION and so therefore not merged in the same fashion that aufs uses: they are simply copied into the UNION, into the aufs.

it seems to me that this is actually the preferred method, and not my patch (at http://www.knoppix.net/forum/threads...t-image-on-dvd).

would anyone disagree with this?

proctor

It will not disrupt the operation of aufs, but you will have inconsistant packages, your file system will have additional files and directories which should not exist, ie files and directories which should have been removed by package updates will re-appear in the "tar copied" file system. That's what I believe should be the behaviour of 'aufs'. Your views may differ.