leo-project
Multitenancy support in the future
This is more or less just a theoretical question touching on future plans and whether multitenancy is on the roadmap. Also as of now, could this be implemented by a relatively low touch code addition or would this require major refactoring of LeoFS?
This could be something a lot of potential (large) adopters are looking for.
Thanks in advance.
@pannon You're able to separately manage user's objects with a bucket, and which already realizes access control.
LeoFS' Commands
- Create a user
$ leofs-adm create-user test_account password
access-key-id: be8111173c8218aaf1c3
secret-access-key: 929b09f9b794832142c59218f2907cd1c35ac163
- Get users
$ leofs-adm get-users
user_id | access_key_id | created_at
------------+------------------------+---------------------------
_test_leofs | 05236 | 2012-12-07 10:27:39 +0900
leo | 39bbad4f3b837ed209fb | 2012-12-07 10:27:39 +0900
- Update ACL of a user
$ leofs-adm update-acl photo 05236 private
ok
$ leofs-adm update-acl photo 05236 public-read
ok
$ leofs-adm update-acl photo 05236 public-read-write
ok
- Reference: S3-API Commands
@pannon let us clarify that what multi-tenancy exactly means? as @yosukehara said at the above comment, we've provided only bucket-level multi-tenancy but maybe what you call multi-tenancy is like Riak S2 provides (more high level features
- User Creation
- Credential Management
- Dedicated Storage (physically separated from others
- and much more!
right? if so, it's definitely attractive especially for kinda cloud players. so it would be great if you tell us which features you actually want.
@mocchira, sorry I wasn't clear enough previously - yes I meant multitenancy similar to Riak S2.
@yosukehara we use bucket/user level separation already, but in some cases it would be more desirable to have some form of an organisation/department/environment separation with sub-users.
Right now the only way to somewhat achieve this is to set up multiple separated clusters.
@pannon I've understood your request totally. We'll consider that at beginning of the next month, then I'll share the plan on here.
@pannon We're going to consider again this issue from next week since v1.3.5 was released.
Have there been any recent changes relating to multi-tenancy? Is this possible yet?
