Is this even a good idea? Bypassing fuse writing to cache locations

[aglyons]

Came across this video the other day.

 

 

I'm wondering if this is even a good idea or not. Would this have any effect on share marked for cache that 'should' be moved to the array? Are they still moved or not?

[SimonF]

2 minutes ago, aglyons said:

Came across this video the other day.

 

 

I'm wondering if this is even a good idea or not. Would this have any effect on share marked for cache that 'should' be moved to the array? Are they still moved or not?

this is being added in 6.12 as exclusive shares. They cannot have a secondary location.

[aglyons]

would be nice if there was the best of both worlds. Write a DL to the cache but have the mover put it on the array.

 

But, still bypass fuse for the write.

[veri745]

1 hour ago, aglyons said:

would be nice if there was the best of both worlds. Write a DL to the cache but have the mover put it on the array.

 

But, still bypass fuse for the write.

You can't bypass fuse for the write if there's a chance the file already exists on the array

[veri745]

1 hour ago, aglyons said:

Would this have any effect on share marked for cache that 'should' be moved to the array? Are they still moved or not?

The problem with mapping a docker container directly to a cache drive is that when the mover runs, any files will disappear from the container's perspective.

 

That may be major, minor, or non-issue depending on the container and what type of file is disappearing.

 

Seems safe for shares that are cache-only

Edited May 7, 2023 by veri745

[aglyons]

46 minutes ago, veri745 said:

The problem with mapping a docker container directly to a cache drive is that when the mover runs, any files will disappear from the container's perspective.

 

That may be major, minor, or non-issue depending on the container and what type of file is disappearing.

 

Seems safe for shares that are cache-only

Ok, there's a gotcha!