[Users] SIMFS users

[Michael Stauber]

Hi Scott,

> Ummm, you can still access the files inside of ploop-based container
> when it isn't running... simply by mounting it.  Is there an issue
> with that?

Granted: It's probably more of a psychological or philosophical issue
than a technical one. Filesystem on a filesystem. That adds a level of
complexity and another potential point of failure. Yes, it has benefits.
But ease of access to anything while using simfs often seems to
outweight that. Even if people don't use it for that reason: It adds
some peace of mind that they could - if they wanted to. Potential quota
and inode issues alone won't deter them from using simfs that way.

Think of existing architectures where someone fiddled in some custom
backup scripts to do partial or complete VPS backups. Sure, it's
possible with ploop, too. But it would require tampering with something
that ain't broken to begin with.

Don't get me wrong: I like ploop and have no issue with it. Other
virtualization solutions (containerized or not) also usually have their
own filesystem for VMs or containers and direct access to that from the
HN also needs some crutches or work arounds. Still: I'd be fighting an
uphill battle if I'd were to introduce it as default for my users.
Somehow ploop doesn't provide a "killer-feature" that would help me in
convincing those that either don't know ploop yet, or haven't used it
yet. But maybe someone has some talking points that would help me to win
some hearts and minds there?

To get back to the original question that Sergey asked: He maybe asked
because they're considering to eventually drop simfs support. Because
that's how I'd test the waters if I were to retire some legacy features
from my own projects. To that I humbly say: Please don't. We like that
ugly duckling and would like to keep it. Alternatively: Give us a really
good reason (or a "killer-feature") that makes it a "must have" item.

-- 
With best regards

Michael Stauber