1 |
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> I wouldn't be surprised if it works with a single bind mount with |
5 |
>> /proc and /dev and so on mounted on top of that. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Either you start with a writable tree and bind-mount some directories |
8 |
> non-writable or the opposite way. Either way, a dozen or so bind-mounts |
9 |
> are minimally necessary. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
/proc, /sys, and /dev wouldn't be bind mounts. They're just mounts. |
13 |
And everything else would be pulled in with a read-only bind mount of |
14 |
/. |
15 |
|
16 |
You're going to need the same mounts of /proc, /sys, and /dev on an |
17 |
overlay, unless you really wanted to let those pass through, which |
18 |
seems like a bad idea. |
19 |
|
20 |
>> You say "not even a bind" as if that is a benefit. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> In case the "non-scaling" argument has not become clear, |
23 |
> I try to visualize it by a table: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> | "simple" | "fine grained" |
26 |
> ---------+----------------+------------------- |
27 |
> Overlay | 1 mount | 1 mount |
28 |
> ---------+----------------+------------------- |
29 |
> Container| 10? bind mounts| 1000? bind mounts |
30 |
|
31 |
Except it is more like: |
32 |
|
33 |
| "simple" | "fine grained" |
34 |
---------+----------------+------------------- |
35 |
Overlay | 1 mount | 1 mount + 1000? file deletions in the overlay |
36 |
---------+----------------+------------------- |
37 |
Container| 1-2 bind mounts | 1000? bind mounts |
38 |
|
39 |
I left out dev+sys+proc in both cases - it would be a few more mounts |
40 |
either way. |
41 |
|
42 |
And there is really no difference in performance between 1 mount and |
43 |
10 in practice. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Rich |