Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cli flag allow customized storage type #1912

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 26, 2022
Merged

cli flag allow customized storage type #1912

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 26, 2022

Conversation

DEvmIb
Copy link
Contributor

@DEvmIb DEvmIb commented Apr 26, 2022

allow mount to select storage typ other than default from format.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Apr 26, 2022

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@zhijian-pro
Copy link
Contributor

@DEvmIb What kind of scenarios require such behavior ?

@DEvmIb
Copy link
Contributor Author

DEvmIb commented Apr 26, 2022

main server using file for performance. clients in other location can not access files. the bucket switch is not enough, juicefs sets storage type from meta "file://https://example.com/gws/.juicefs/fs/gws/".

so why not let client choose where the files are and let juicefs become more cloud aware. juicefs has many storage types, but after setting up all clients forced to use just this one storage type.

@davies
Copy link
Contributor

davies commented Apr 26, 2022

For a single JuiceFS file system, all the clients of JuiceFS should able read the data written by others. If the storage types are different, how can they work together?

We can't understand why this option is need.

@DEvmIb
Copy link
Contributor Author

DEvmIb commented Apr 26, 2022

ok let my try to explain it better.

location A

  • direct access to the chunks on disk.
  • using mount --storage file --bucket /path/to/chunks redis://test.local/1
  • no overhead going through s3,webdav etc

Location B

as i write above the storage is fixed at metata/settings and let me not mix how i want to access the chunk store.

it works for me, that should be enough to write, it should just be a hint :)

@davies
Copy link
Contributor

davies commented Apr 26, 2022

@DEvmIb That make sense, lgtm.

@davies davies merged commit 6ba5739 into juicedata:main Apr 26, 2022
@davies
Copy link
Contributor

davies commented Apr 26, 2022

@DEvmIb If there is no conflict with main branch, you don't need to merge with it to MERGE the PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants