[Gluster-users] Turning GlusterFS into something else (was Re: how well will this work)

符永涛 yongtaofu at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 14:33:21 UTC 2012

I agree with
> 3) Implement true undelete feature. Make delete a move to a deleted-files area.
If some people want it and others don't we can make a configurable
translator to accomplish this and disable it by default.
Some other distributed file systems like moosefs also provide such
feature, deleted files are kept in the trash bin for the configured
amount of time before they are deleted.
We have such requirement because some data is just too important we
can't affort it be deleted accidently.

2012/12/31, Whit Blauvelt <whit.gluster at transpect.com>:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:12:04PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
>> If I delete
>> something on a disk that is far from being full it is just plain dumb to
>> really erase this data from the disk. It won't help anyone. It will only
>> hurt
>> you if you deleted it accidently. Read my lips: free disk space is wasted
>> space, just like free mem is wasted mem.
>> And _that_ is the true reason for undelete. It won't hurt anybody, and
>> will
>> help some. And since it is the true goal of a fs to organise data on a
>> drive
>> it is most obvious that "undelete" (you may call it lazy-delete) is a
>> very
>> basic fs feature and _not_ an add-on patched onto it.
> Stephan,
> It's good to have a strong debater here like yourself. But you overlooked
> Jeff's citing "compliance reasons." I don't know what sort of data you deal
> in. But if it's anything financial, at all, there is serious jeopardy if
> deleted files aren't really deleted. Much of it has both regulatory and
> contractual requirements, plus potential legal liability.
> Yeah, I know parts of deleted files still often linger on the disk anyway.
> But maintaining an index to those files, which would be what your request
> would require, would put many of us in violation of these requirements in a
> way that that simply does not. If a system is compromised, it's going to be
> far easier for the compromiser to find deleted data if there's an available
> index to it. It's far more work, and a far more obvious intrusion, if they
> have to go sector-by-sector through the storage.
> Best,
> Whit
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list