Hi,
Assuming a cluster (currently octopus, might upgrade to pacific once
released) serving only CephFS and that only to a handful of kernel and
fuse-clients (no OpenStack, CSI or similar): Are there any side effects
of not using the ceph-mgr volumes module abstractions [1], namely
subvolumes and subvolume groups, that I have to consider?
I would still only mount subtrees of the whole (single) CephFS file
system and have some clients which mount multiple disjunct subtrees.
Quotas would only be set on the subtree level which I am mounting,
likewise file layouts. Snapshots (via mkdir in .snap) would be used on
the mounting level or one level above.
Background: I don't require the abstraction features per se. Some
restrictions (e.g. subvolume group snapshots not being supported) seem
to me to be caused only by the abstraction layer and not the underlying
CephFS. For my specific use case I require snapshots on the subvolume
group layer. It therefore seems better to just forego the abstraction as
a whole and work on bare CephFS.
Cheers
Sebastian
[1] https://docs.ceph.com/en/octopus/cephfs/fs-volumes/
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
