search

google-code-export / s3ql

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/s3ql
0 stars 0 forks source link

allow file system to be mounted from multiple computers simultaneously #351

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I don't know how you would implement this, given your current design, but it 
would be awesome if possible for me to have access to my files from all of my 
computers.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by da...@brauncoaching.com on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sorry, this just isn't possible. You can google the mailing list for previous 
discussions if you are interested in the details.

Original comment by Nikolaus@rath.org on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This really seems to come up regularly, so I have added a FAQ entry:

Can I access an S3QL file system on multiple computers simultaneously?

To share a file system between several computers, you need to have a method for 
these computers to communicate, so that they can tell each other when they are 
changing data. However, S3QL is designed to store data in cloud storage 
services which can not be used for this kind of communication, because 
different computers may end up talking to different servers in the cloud (and 
there is no way for S3QL to force the cloud servers to synchronize quickly and 
often enough).

Therefore, the only way to share an S3QL file system among different computers 
is to have one "master" computer that runs mount.s3ql, and then shares the 
mountpoint over a network file system like NFS, CIFS or sshfs. If the 
participating computers are connected over an insecure network, NFS and CIFS 
should be combined with VPN software like Tinc (which is very easy to set up 
for a few computers) or OpenVPN (which is a lot more complicated).

In principle, both VPN and NFS/CIFS-alike functionality could be integrated 
into S3QL to allow simultaneous mounting using mount.s3ql directly. However, 
consensus among the S3QL developers is that this is not worth the increased 
complexity.

Original comment by Nikolaus@rath.org on 26 Apr 2012 at 2:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Instead of storing cache data in sqlite on a local computer, why not create a 
database adapter and have all mounts connect to a shared database.

Original comment by cl...@getweave.com on 7 Apr 2014 at 10:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
How about mounting S3QL on multiple nodes and sticking gfs2 on top of it?

Would it work?

Original comment by robbert....@gmail.com on 4 Aug 2014 at 7:45