zfs discuss - Aug 2006 - multi-layer ZFS filesystems and exporting: my stupid question for the day

One of the things espoused on this list again and again is that quotas
for users are not ideal, and that one should just make a filesystem
per user.

Ok.. I did that. I now have per just one "volume" within my pool some
380 odd users. By way of example, lets say I have
/pool/common/users/user1 ... /pool/common/users/user2

I then went into /etc/dfs/dfstab and did a share for /pool/common to a
client, and mounted it there. I knew this might happen, but I hoped it
wouldn''t: only /pool/common/users is seen and not the files usernames
or their directories.

Is there a way to allow simple export commands the traverse multiple
ZFS filesystems for exporting? I''d hate to have to have hundreds of
mounts required for every point in a given tree (we have users,
projects, src, etc)

On August 16, 2006 10:25:18 AM -0700 Joe Little <jmlittle at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is there a way to allow simple export commands the traverse multiple
> ZFS filesystems for exporting? I''d hate to have to have hundreds
of
> mounts required for every point in a given tree (we have users,
> projects, src, etc)
Set the sharenfs property on the filesystems and use the automounter
on the client.

-frank

On 8/16/06, Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com>
wrote:
> On August 16, 2006 10:25:18 AM -0700 Joe Little <jmlittle at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there a way to allow simple export commands the traverse multiple
> > ZFS filesystems for exporting? I''d hate to have to have
hundreds of
> > mounts required for every point in a given tree (we have users,
> > projects, src, etc)
>
> Set the sharenfs property on the filesystems and use the automounter
> on the client.
>
Damn. We are hoping to move away from automounters and maintenance of
such (we use NeoPath, for example, for virtual aggregation of the
paths). In the NAS world, sometimes automounts are not available. So,
if this is true, you''ll likely need to count me as one of those people
who says we can''t make a filesystem per user, and give us user quotas
now please :)

> -frank
>
>
>

On August 16, 2006 10:34:31 AM -0700 Joe Little <jmlittle at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com> wrote:
>> On August 16, 2006 10:25:18 AM -0700 Joe Little <jmlittle at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is there a way to allow simple export commands the traverse
multiple
>> > ZFS filesystems for exporting? I''d hate to have to have
hundreds of
>> > mounts required for every point in a given tree (we have users,
>> > projects, src, etc)
>>
>> Set the sharenfs property on the filesystems and use the automounter
>> on the client.
>>
>
> Damn. We are hoping to move away from automounters and maintenance of
> such (we use NeoPath, for example, for virtual aggregation of the
> paths).
I don''t know what NeoPath is but automounts are trivial or at least
easy to maintain even for very large sites.  You are using path wildcards
and DNS aliases, yes?
> In the NAS world, sometimes automounts are not available. So,
> if this is true, you''ll likely need to count me as one of those
people
> who says we can''t make a filesystem per user, and give us user
quotas
> now please :)
I don''t understand.  If an automount is not available, how is that
different than the nfs server itself not being available.  Or do you
mean some clients do not have an automounter.

-frank

On 8/16/06, Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com>
wrote:
> On August 16, 2006 10:34:31 AM -0700 Joe Little <jmlittle at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/16/06, Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com> wrote:
> >> On August 16, 2006 10:25:18 AM -0700 Joe Little <jmlittle at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Is there a way to allow simple export commands the traverse
multiple
> >> > ZFS filesystems for exporting? I''d hate to have to
have hundreds of
> >> > mounts required for every point in a given tree (we have
users,
> >> > projects, src, etc)
> >>
> >> Set the sharenfs property on the filesystems and use the
automounter
> >> on the client.
> >>
> >
> > Damn. We are hoping to move away from automounters and maintenance of
> > such (we use NeoPath, for example, for virtual aggregation of the
> > paths).
>
> I don''t know what NeoPath is but automounts are trivial or at
least
> easy to maintain even for very large sites.  You are using path wildcards
> and DNS aliases, yes?
used to.. running away quickly. For different *nix flavors, pick one
of autofs, automountd, etc.. Nohide support, no nohide support,
netgroups, LDAP, it all gets ugly pretty quickly. We want to move to
statically definied mount trees similar to AFS managed centrally for
all using NFS as the common protocol (aka the NeoPath)
>
> > In the NAS world, sometimes automounts are not available. So,
> > if this is true, you''ll likely need to count me as one of
those people
> > who says we can''t make a filesystem per user, and give us
user quotas
> > now please :)
>
> I don''t understand.  If an automount is not available, how is that
> different than the nfs server itself not being available.  Or do you
> mean some clients do not have an automounter.
Some clients don''t have automounters available. Also some servers:
Example is gateways/proxys (think SMB proxy w/o automounter support).

Other clients in heavy use require lots of changes to get what you
propose, such as OSX''s automounter (storing the results in NetInfo)
>
> -frank
>