On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/08/2016 07:32 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: >> hi, >> Late last week I sent a solution for how to achieve >> subdirectory-mount support with access-controls >> (http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2016-March/048537.html). >> What follows here is a short description of how other features of >> gluster volumes are implemented for sub-directories. >> >> Please note that the sub-directories are not allowed to be accessed by >> normal mounts i.e. top-level volume mounts. All access to the >> sub-directories goes only through sub-directory mounts. > Is this acceptable? If I have a,b,c sub directories in the volume and if > I mount the same volume in /mnt then do you mean to say I won't be able > to access /mnt/a or /mnt/b and I can only access them using sub > directory mounts? Or you are talking about some specific case here? >> >> 1) Geo-replication: >> The direction in which we are going is to allow geo-replicating just >> some sub-directories and not all of the volume based on options. When >> these options are set, server xlators populate extra information in the >> frames/xdata to write changelog for the fops coming from their >> sub-directory mounts. changelog xlator on seeing this will only >> geo-replicate the files/directories that are in the changelog. Thus only >> the sub-directories are geo-replicated. There is also a suggestion from >> Vijay and Aravinda to have separate domains for operations inside >> sub-directories for changelogs. >> >> 2) Sub-directory snapshots using lvm >> Every time a sub-directory needs to be created, Our idea is that the >> admin needs to execute subvolume creation command which creates a mount >> to an empty snapshot at the given sub-directory name. All these >> directories can be modified in parallel and we can take individual >> snapshots of each of the directories. We will be providing a detailed >> list commands to do the same once they are fleshed out. At the moment >> these are the directions we are going to increase granularity from >> volume to subdirectory for the main features. We use hardlinks to the `.glusterfs` directory on bricks. So wouldn't having multiple filesystems inside a brick break the brick? Also, I'd prefer if sub-directory mounts and sub-directory snapshots remained separate, and not tied with each other. This mail gives the feeling that they will be tied together. >> >> Pranith >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
