On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:49 AM Sebastian Knust <sknust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > Assuming a cluster (currently octopus, might upgrade to pacific once > released) serving only CephFS and that only to a handful of kernel and > fuse-clients (no OpenStack, CSI or similar): Are there any side effects > of not using the ceph-mgr volumes module abstractions [1], namely > subvolumes and subvolume groups, that I have to consider? The "volume" abstraction helps with creating the file system/MDS and may help with management in the future. No side-effects for not using either one. > I would still only mount subtrees of the whole (single) CephFS file > system and have some clients which mount multiple disjunct subtrees. > Quotas would only be set on the subtree level which I am mounting, > likewise file layouts. Snapshots (via mkdir in .snap) would be used on > the mounting level or one level above. > > > Background: I don't require the abstraction features per se. Some > restrictions (e.g. subvolume group snapshots not being supported) seem > to me to be caused only by the abstraction layer and not the underlying > CephFS. For my specific use case I require snapshots on the subvolume > group layer. It therefore seems better to just forego the abstraction as > a whole and work on bare CephFS. subvolumegroup snapshots will come back, probably in a minor release of Pacific. -- Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D. He / Him / His Principal Software Engineer Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |