Open Stack

> For ultra isolation, the RADOS pools would also be configured to map to different OSDs.

This is really good idea, and will be motivation to me.

> Separate RADOS namespaces do not provide physical separation (multiple
> namespaces exist within one pool, hence on the same OSDs), but they
> would provide server-side security for preventing clients seeing into
> one anothers data pools.  The terminology is confusing because RADOS
> namespace is a distinct ceph specific concept from filesystem
> namespaces.

Would there be another namespace for the driver? I think it's better to have.
And it would make things more simple.

> CephFS doesn't currently have either the "separate MDSs" isolation, or the support for using RADOS namespaces in layouts.

Yes, it's better to have dedicated MON so that we use different keyring.

Do you have any blueprint?