On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:00:59PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > The main use case for open by filehandle was (and still should be) the > promise of being able to do the sort of tricks you normally associate > with object storage on a standard filesystem. > > Imagine that you are trying to build an application for indexing and > searching the data on your storage. You basically want to trawl through > the filesystem on a regular basis and build up a database of key words > and other metadata to tell you what is in the files. For that kind of > application, the namespace is a real PITA to deal with, because files > get renamed, moved and deleted all the time; so if you can store > something that is independent of the namespace and that will give you > access to the file contents, then why wouldn't you do so? Normally, > applications like that use the inode number, but you can't open a file > by inode number, and you have the same problems with inode number reuse > that a NFS server has. > > That's the sort of thing I'd think we want to allow through open by > filehandle, and I see no reason why NFS should be excluded from that > type of application. Thanks, that makes sense. We've had open_by_handle support for most filesystems since 2011, is there evidence of anyone doing this? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
