(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
Hi Ivan On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 9:06 pm, Ivan Popov wrote: > Volumes are connected into the file name space by so called "mount point" > objects. You create a mount point by > > cfs mkm /coda/realm/path > > which connect a volume named "/path" (if such one exists) at > /coda/realm/path > > To keep the things simple you should synchronize > volume names and the corresponding mount point path names. > Fortunately, it is the default for "cfs mkm". > > Well, nothing prevents you from deliberately connect an arbitrary volume to > an arbitrary place in the file tree by doing > > cfs mkm /coda/realm/path anyvolumename > > but I would strongly advice you against that - this possibility is useful > only in rare cases for troubleshooting or alike, or when you paths become > too long (volume names are currently limited to 32 chars). > > A volume named "/test" becomes visible as soon as you > create the corresponding mountpoint with > > cfs mkm /coda/mrblue.localdomain/test > > and becomes invisible if you happen to remove the mount point: > > cfs rmm /coda/mrblue.localdomain/test > > > I'm getting horribly confused here. What does the <volname> argument to > > createvol_rep relate to ? How do I specify this volume on the client > > system ? > > In the underlying implementation - due to AFS tradition, > the volume names and file names namespaces are totally unrelated, > so a server needs a hint when it should do a lookup for a certain volume. > > We can not yet break that tradition and make the one-to-one mapping > implicit - as there are some cases where we still have to connect volumes > arbitrarily. Possibly we could avoid those corner cases later by careful > (re)design, but it would need some extra effort. > > At the very least we would have to implement arbitrary length volume names > and make a decision about where and how backup volumes shall appear > in the file name space. > Volume management would have to be done differently, and done > from clients, not from servers as it is now. > > Otherwise I feel that your expectation (a volume being visible > as soon as it is created) is a very reasonable one - though incompatible > with the existing implementation. > > Compared to AFS we have made a step in the right direction by the implicit > volume naming in "cfs mkm", may be some day we can go further. > > Best regards, > -- > IvanReceived on 2005-09-12 17:28:32