[Gluster-users] A simple way to federate gluster namespace ?

[Jay Vyas]

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>