From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outrelay08.libero.it ([212.52.84.112]:48123 "EHLO outrelay08.libero.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933133AbaFCRAi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2014 13:00:38 -0400 Message-ID: <538DFFEB.105@libero.it> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:03:39 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Anton Mitterer , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Hugo Mills Subject: Re: some project ideas: NFS4 ACLs, resilience on the same device, allowing to specify which devices are "distinct" in a RAID References: <1401731056.4904.9.camel@heisenberg.scientia.net> In-Reply-To: <1401731056.4904.9.camel@heisenberg.scientia.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/02/2014 07:44 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hi. > > Christian Kujau suggested in the wiki[] to post project ideas to the > list to give them some possible wider discussion. > > So far I've had these ideas: > > 1) NFS 4 ACLs[1] > Not sure whether it has been proposed and/or rejected before),... but it > would be nice if it was a goal for btrfs to support NFS4 ACLs. > > These are much more powerful than POSIX.1e ACLs... and I think it would > be nice if all the major Linux filesystems would support them in > addition or as an alternative to the POSIX.1e ACLs. Of course one would > have to think about a schema what happens when there are ACLs of both > types in place for a file, whether this is allowed at all or not and how > rules would be merged. There is (was ?) a project to address that: richacl http://www.bestbits.at/richacl/. This is not a btrfs project, but a linux kernel project because from a filesystem POV the implementation requires to store some information in a extended attributes: the check is performed at the VFS level. [...] > > > 3) allow to tell btrfs which devices are really distinct in a RAID > For some reasons people may have setups e.g. like this: > /dev/sda1 > /dev/sda2 > /dev/sdb1 > /dev/sdc1 > Now one could create a RAID5 on them, but apparently sda1 and sda2 are > on the same disk... so I'd like a way to tell btrfs that these are the > "same" and not really that redundant. Hugo Mill worked on something related to that [1] [1] "Thoughts on RAID nomenclature" http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg33782.html > > > Cheers, > Chris. > > [0] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Talk%3AProject_ideas&action=historysubmit&diff=26841&oldid=26831 > [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Talk:Project_ideas#NFS4_ACLS > -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5