Suggestion: rename the "unionfs" plugin?

1. offizieller Beitrag

    Author of mergerfs here.


    As I understand the unionfs plugin supported multiple technologies but now only mergerfs. Perhaps it's just a documentation problem but I seem to notice a pretty high rate of questions in the vain of "How is the UnionFS plugin and mergerfs different?" or asking about the plugin in ways that implies the person doesn't know that mergerfs is ultimately being used which I suspect makes it harder to find information about mergerfs.


    So I'm wondering if it'd be worth renaming the plugin to "mergerfs" or "unionfs (mergerfs)" or somehow make it clearer what's the relationship and where info can be found.


    I don't use OMV (and therefore the plugin) so I might be missing something but from the outside there does seem to be some confusion.


    Thanks.

  • trapexit

    Hat den Titel des Themas von „Suggestion: rename the "unionfs" plugin“ zu „Suggestion: rename the "unionfs" plugin?“ geändert.
    • Offizieller Beitrag

    I agree it probably should be renamed. I think the reason I didn't rename it is legacy. People would ask where the unionfilesystems plugin went and not realize the mergerfs plugin is what they want. Ironically, back in the aufs and mhddfs days, they were separate plugins that had a self explanatory name.


    I did create another plugin that is mergerfsfolders that uses paths instead of filesystems to create the pools. That probably didn't help either but I wanted to get away from the unionfs plugin's code base.


    So, I'm open to suggestions on whether it should change or leave it the same or provide both?

    omv 7.0.5-1 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.8 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.13 | compose 7.1.4 | k8s 7.1.0-3 | cputemp 7.0.1 | mergerfs 7.0.4


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github - changelogs


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

    Has this been done? I've been told by some that there are now two plugins both which setup mergerfs. That seems to be increasing confusion. Is this true or are they using old versions that were updated and now have both?


    Who is the maintainer? Is there anything I could do to help here? Either on the OMV or mergerfs side?


    I'm sorry if this has been addressed but I'm not a user of OMV and haven't had the time to poke around.

    • Offizieller Beitrag
    Zitat von trapexit

    Has this been done?

    No. I haven't had time.


    Zitat von trapexit

    I've been told by some that there are now two plugins both which setup mergerfs.

    There are two. I mentioned that in my previous post. Some users wanted to pool folders instead of filesystems. It would have complicated the code for the existing unionfilesystems plugins. So, I created a new plugin. I kind of wanted to get rid of the unionfilesystems plugin but I think the mergerfsfolders plugin is a bit harder for noobs.


    Zitat von trapexit

    Is this true or are they using old versions that were updated and now have both?

    People shouldn't have any issues if they use both plugins. Not sure why they would.

    Zitat von trapexit

    Who is the maintainer?

    I maintain both plugins.


    Zitat von trapexit

    Is there anything I could do to help here? Either on the OMV or mergerfs side?

    Not sure. Other than not having time, I have been avoiding changing the unionfilesystems plugin because people have been having issues in combination with LUKS when they aren't using auto-unlock. Because the LUKS device doesn't existing, the filesystem isn't mounted. That is fine because it has the nofail flag. But because mergerfs ignores the nofail flag, the system goes into recovery mode. I could rewrite the plugin to use systemd mounts that would wait for the filesystem instead of failing. Not sure how well this would work but it would be a major plugin rewrite.

    omv 7.0.5-1 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.8 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.13 | compose 7.1.4 | k8s 7.1.0-3 | cputemp 7.0.1 | mergerfs 7.0.4


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github - changelogs


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

    • Offizieller Beitrag
    Zitat von trapexit

    Ignores / breaks how with nofail? mergerfs should just be passing nofail through to the kernel.

    I would swear that I read or you told me that mergerfs ignored nofail and that is why I took it out of the default options. I guess I will add it back.

    omv 7.0.5-1 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.8 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.13 | compose 7.1.4 | k8s 7.1.0-3 | cputemp 7.0.1 | mergerfs 7.0.4


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github - changelogs


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

    When I previously included nofail in a manually entered in fstab mergerfs mount the mount would fail at boot. Some time ago something was fixed allowing me to use nofail again. I don't remember what fixed it, but it was discussed in the forum.

    --
    Google is your friend and Bob's your uncle!


    OMV AMD64 7.x on headless Chenbro NR12000 1U 1x 8m Quad Core E3-1220 3.1GHz 32GB ECC RAM.

Jetzt mitmachen!

Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!

Benutzerkonto erstellen Anmelden