TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Show HN: MergerFS – A Featureful Union Filesystem

44 pointsby thricegreatover 3 years ago

4 comments

karlicossover 3 years ago
Cool tool, but recommend reading the policies [0] section carefully, it did catch me off guard the first time I tried using it.<p>E.g. say you have &#x2F;a&#x2F;foo.txt and &#x2F;b&#x2F;foo.txt, and you run mergerfs &#x2F;a:&#x2F;b &#x2F;merged<p>Now if you print or modify &#x2F;merged&#x2F;foo.txt, it would access &#x2F;a&#x2F;foo.txt because the default policy for file access is ff (first-found, as defined during the mount).<p>However, if you run &quot;rm &#x2F;merged&#x2F;foo.txt&quot;, it would delete it from <i>both</i> &#x2F;a and &#x2F;b, because the default policy for unlink call would be &quot;epall&quot; (existing path, apply to all).<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;trapexit&#x2F;mergerfs#policy-descriptions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;trapexit&#x2F;mergerfs#policy-descriptions</a>
评论 #29868382 未加载
canadaduaneover 3 years ago
The &quot;Why?&quot; is hard to find, but I think this answer to &quot;Why use mergerfs over unionfs&quot; is informative:<p>&gt; UnionFS is more like aufs than mergerfs in that it offers overlay &#x2F; CoW features. If you&#x27;re just looking to create a union of drives and want flexibility in file&#x2F;directory placement, then mergerfs offers that, whereas unionfs is more for overlaying RW filesystems over RO ones.<p>Also:<p>&gt; What should mergerfs NOT be used for?<p>1. databases: Even if the database stored data in separate files (mergerfs wouldn&#x27;t offer much otherwise) the higher latency of the indirection will kill performance. If it is a lightly used SQLITE database then it may be fine but you&#x27;ll need to test.<p>2. VM images: For the same reasons as databases. VM images are accessed very aggressively and mergerfs will introduce too much latency (if it works at all).<p>3. As replacement for RAID: mergerfs is just for pooling branches. If you need that kind of device performance aggregation or high availability you should stick with RAID.
OJFordover 3 years ago
Is this really a &#x27;Show HN&#x27;? Anyway, I&#x27;m not affiliated with the maintainer either, but if it&#x27;s of use to anyone reading I do maintain a Docker image for mergerfs: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;OJFord&#x2F;docker-mergerfs&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;OJFord&#x2F;docker-mergerfs&#x2F;</a>
hello_thereover 3 years ago
If you find this interesting then you might also be interested in SnapRAID: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snapraid.it&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snapraid.it&#x2F;</a><p>&gt; SnapRAID is a backup program for disk arrays. It stores parity information of your data and it recovers from up to six disk failures.<p>&gt; SnapRAID is mainly targeted for a home media center, with a lot of big files that rarely change.<p>&gt; If the failed disks are too many to allow a recovery, you lose the data only on the failed disks. All the data in the other disks is safe.<p>I&#x27;m not affiliated with any of the projects.
评论 #29867074 未加载