Thanks! Is it safe to just apply that last commit to 0.56.1? Also, is the rados command 'clonedata' instead of 'clone'? That's what it looked like in the code. On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Nick Bartos wrote: >> Assuming that the clone is atomic so that the client only ever grabbed >> a complete old or new version of the file, that method really seems >> ideal. How much work/time would that be? >> >> The objects will likely average around 10-20MB, but it's possible that >> in some cases they may grow to a few hundred MB. > > You're in luck--my email load was mercifully light this morning. > > 713 ./rados -p data ls - > 714 ./rados put foo.tmp /etc/passwd -p data --object-locator foo > 715 ./rados clone foo.tmp foo -p data --object-locator foo > 716 ./rados -p data ls - > 717 ./rados -p data rm foo.tmp --object-locator foo > 718 ./rados -p data ls - > 719 ./rados -p data get foo - > > see wip-rados-clone. > > sage > > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > With a bit of additional support in the rados tool, we could write to >> > object $foo.tmp with key $foo, and then clone it into position and delete >> > the .tmp. >> > >> > If they're really big objects, though, you may also be better off with >> > radosgw, which provides striping and atomicity.. >> > >> > sage >> >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
