Dear devs (ceph-devel / nfs-ganesha-devel), Matt Benjamin asked me in this github issue [1] to send an email to the dev mailing lists to discuss a feature [1]. As this feature needs support from both "(lib)cephfs", librados as well as nfs-ganesha I'm sending it to both lists. TL;DR: Add support for nfs-ganesha to make use of 1) librados namespace, 2) (lib)cephfs namespace in order to avoid seperate pools for each nfs-ganesha instance. Motivation: As far as I'm aware of libcephfs / librados support "namespaces". Note: namespaces in this context are not "multiple filesystems" but rather an "object prefix" to separate different objects in cephfs / RADOS. One of the benefits of "namespaces" is that you can have multiple instances of ganesha using the same pool / filesystem without objects clashing. Currently you would need a separate pool for "RADOS_KV" and "RADOS_URLS" per nfs-ganesha instance. With namespace support in libcephfs you would be able to logically seperate the objects per namespace: one for each nfs-ganesha instance ... and restrict access to only this namespace instead of the whole pool: caps: [mds] allow rw path=/path/on/cephfs caps: [mon] allow r caps: [osd] allow rw pool=cephfs_data namespace=your-name-space-here As a (Ceph) storage admin you would be able to provide tenants the (cephx) capabilities to use nfs-ganesha, without the need to give them rw access to your cephfs_data pool(s). As it turns out the "librados" support is already present in nfs-ganesha 2.7 [2]. However, only when you are using the CEPH FSAL in "active/active" mode. It would be nice to "backport" / reuse this code to be able to use it with the "rados_ng" RADOS_KV recovery backend and / or RADOS_URLS. This would be useful for those that (still) want to use a "active/passive" setup (CTDB, pacemaker / corosync). The "libcephfs" namespace support is not yet implemented in nfs-ganesha AFAIK. This would provide the benefits as discussed in motivation. With adding support for "namespaces" it opens the way for nfs-ganesha multi-tenancy. Does this makes sense? Do you agree on the use case? Would this indeed need support from both ceph as well as nfs-ganesha developers? Thanks, Stefan Kooman [1]: https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/issues/353 [2]: https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/blob/next/src/doc/man/ganesha-rados-grace.rst -- | BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/ Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / info@xxxxxx
