unionfs sounds like it may work. Not sure what you mean by "tree"? On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Robert Hajime Lanning <lanning at lanning.cc>wrote: > On 04/05/13 15:33, Jay Vyas wrote: > >> Hi guys: >> >> BTW thanks for the insights regarding locality . Now I have a new >> stupid question for you: >> >> Namespace federation ! >> >> Say I have two gluster volumes, and I want to access both volumes from >> the same mount point. >> >> It would be cool if there was a "gluster volume federate volA volB >> supervol", which created a new volume that read/wrote to supervol/volA >> super/volB transparently. >> >> But in the absence of such a command, could I just federate two gluster >> namespaces using the mount command? Would there be nasty hidden overhead >> and costs to this? >> >> i.e. something like: >> >> mount -o /tmp/supermount/subA /submount/a >> mount -o /tmp/supermount/subB /submount/b >> >> Or maybe you could do the equivalent with symlinks? >> > > Are you wanting to mix namespaces or make a tree? > > A tree is easy: > /mnt/vola > /mnt/volb > > If you want to mix namespaces (i.e. have the roots mingle so an ls show > files from both), that is not possible. > > In linux you might be able to hack something with unionfs, but I am not > sure. > > You won't be able to have a server mount both, then us them as bricks in a > "super volume", as the xattrs will clash. > > -- > Mr. Flibble > King of the Potato People > -- Jay Vyas http://jayunit100.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130406/014c8679/attachment.html>
