Re: the state of cephfs in giant

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Sage,

sorry to be late to this thread; I just caught this one as I was
reviewing the Giant release notes. A few questions below:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> * ACLs: implemented, tested for kernel client. not implemented for
>   ceph-fuse.
> [...]
> * samba VFS integration: implemented, limited test coverage.

ACLs are kind of a must-have feature for most Samba admins. The Samba
Ceph VFS builds on userspace libcephfs directly, neither the kernel
client nor ceph-fuse, so I'm trying to understand whether ACLs are
available to Samba users or not. Can you clarify please?

> * ganesha NFS integration: implemented, no test coverage.

I understood from a conversation I had with John in London that
flock() and fcntl() support had recently been added to ceph-fuse, can
this be expected to Just Work™ in Ganesha as well?

Also, can you make a general statement as to the stability of flock()
and fcntl() support in the kernel client and in libcephfs/ceph-fuse?
This too is particularly interesting for Samba admins who rely on
byte-range locking for Samba CTDB support.

> * kernel NFS reexport: implemented. limited test coverage. no known
>   issues.

In this scenario, is there any specific magic that the kernel client
does to avoid producing deadlocks under memory pressure? Or are you
referring to FUSE-mounted CephFS reexported via kernel NFS?

Cheers,
Florian
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com





[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux