<div dir="ltr">Stephan,<div><br></div><div style>Why don't you simply file a feature request. Something like a volume wide switch:</div><div style><br></div><div style>gluster volume set <volname> delete-policy=<value></div>
<div style><br></div><div style>where value is one of:</div><div style><br></div><div style>"wastebin" this is what you want. There must be another setting somewhere that specifies how must free space must be maintained ie when the wastebin will be emptied fifo.</div>
<div style>"index" this is the default and current behaviour</div><div style>"highwater" this is where the blocks where the file parts levels are getting overwritten with zeroes or whatever.</div><div style>
<br></div><div style>Better yet, as your a C programmer, start contributing.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div style>Cheers,</div><div style>Fred</div><div style><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Whit Blauvelt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:whit.gluster@transpect.com" target="_blank">whit.gluster@transpect.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:12:04PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:<br>
<br>
> If I delete<br>
> something on a disk that is far from being full it is just plain dumb to<br>
> really erase this data from the disk. It won't help anyone. It will only hurt<br>
> you if you deleted it accidently. Read my lips: free disk space is wasted<br>
> space, just like free mem is wasted mem.<br>
> And _that_ is the true reason for undelete. It won't hurt anybody, and will<br>
> help some. And since it is the true goal of a fs to organise data on a drive<br>
> it is most obvious that "undelete" (you may call it lazy-delete) is a very<br>
> basic fs feature and _not_ an add-on patched onto it.<br>
<br>
</div>Stephan,<br>
<br>
It's good to have a strong debater here like yourself. But you overlooked<br>
Jeff's citing "compliance reasons." I don't know what sort of data you deal<br>
in. But if it's anything financial, at all, there is serious jeopardy if<br>
deleted files aren't really deleted. Much of it has both regulatory and<br>
contractual requirements, plus potential legal liability.<br>
<br>
Yeah, I know parts of deleted files still often linger on the disk anyway.<br>
But maintaining an index to those files, which would be what your request<br>
would require, would put many of us in violation of these requirements in a<br>
way that that simply does not. If a system is compromised, it's going to be<br>
far easier for the compromiser to find deleted data if there's an available<br>
index to it. It's far more work, and a far more obvious intrusion, if they<br>
have to go sector-by-sector through the storage.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Whit<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" target="_blank">http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>