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

Jay Vyas jayunit100 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 6 19:23:35 UTC 2013

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130406/014c8679/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list