external-storage | External storage plugins , provisioners , and helper libraries | Storage library

I have been getting a java.io.IOException: Not a directory exception for the following code:

I followed the example in the Ignite documentation for how to configure Ignite to act as a cache with a Postgres database.

I have been able to implement the person example and have had success configuring caches for other simple tables that map to simple POJOS. At this point I have 3 questions:

1. I have only been using an xml configuration on my server to define caches and their types. Is it possible to configure theses caches with annotations either partially or in whole? I have seen else where that caches and their types can be configured with annotations but I am not certain if annotations can be used to define the data source for my connection to postgres. If the data source cannot be configured via annotations is it possible to configure the data source in the xml? I know I can configure them in my java code but would prefer to either use annotations or the XML, however the XML seems very verbose.

2. I have some nested tables where each row corresponds to two or more objects, one with the others nested inside (single layer). Is there documentation of how to set up caches for these objects?

3. Its it possible to use other non built in objects as the cache key?

I have an app that needs to create a file in an app-specific directory, but that file need to be public so it can be edited by another app, so I need a path like this "/storage/emulated/0/Android/data/com.my.app/files"

I already checked Xamarin Documentation and I found what I need. Based on that Documentation I can use this method Android.Content.Context.GetExternalFilesDir(string type).

But I get this error when I call that method.

An object reference is required for the non-static field, method, or property 'Context.GetExternalFilesDir(string)'

I also already check this forum but found no luck

Any ideas how to solve this issue ?

I'm developing a SaaS solution on GCP, service mainly running GKE. Service will provide each user with a private space on disk (folder to keep their files and folder).

Technical requirements:

• Mount with ReadWriteMany to multiple pods
• The number of users: around a few hundred thousand.
• Each user's private storage size will be pretty small around a few hundred MB each up to a few GB max. But the number of files will be pretty huge, ~ few thousands to hundred thousand
• File access will be mostly small reads and writes.
• There will be symbolic links to a shared system folder, but no symbolic link between users' folders.

I currently implement an NFS solution based on this, which is a pain to manage and the project is no longer maintained. I have to manually increase the size of backing PVC and restart all the pods that the PV is mounted in case I need to expand the storage capacity.

Filestore seems to be a very good alternative, but the cost is a big problem as it only allows minimum 1TB storage to be provisioned.

I'm looking for a solution that is easy to manage, good-enough performance and cost-effective. Any recommendation is appreciated.

Thank you very much.

In my app, I'm trying to make folders in the external storage directory, but I can't get it to work. My code looks like it should work properly (it waits for storage permissions before creating the directories). All the mkdirs() lines run, but nothing happens - not even an error.

Here is my main code (which is run on a separate thread - I've tried running setupDir() on the UI thread)

My laptop configuration: Windows 10 Enterprise with Hyper-V (rather than Virtual box).

I was following some Kubernetes tutorial and while doing so my internet connection went down for some time. Later, I resumed the learning but I got the following error and was not able to proceed:

Thanks in advance to all those who help.

Hello, I have somewhat of a unique problem, its rather lengthy to explain but I think if solved we can expand the use-cases of Kubernetes. I think I know how to solve it, but I'm not sure if Kubernetes Stateful Sets supports the solution. Let me elaborate the domain of the problem, the problem itself, and then some of my sample solutions and maybe someone can help fill the gaps.

The Domain Space:

• I have a set of Accounts (external to kubernetes) {Account_A, Account_B, Account_C, etc.}
• Accounts can be active or inactive at anytime (Important: in NO PARTICULAR ORDER).
• If activated, a pod is deployed which serves that account, and keeps a persistent volume with all of that accounts work-space/data. That account is interacted with by its unique pod identifier, and IP.
• If deactivated, the pod is removed but the data persists so that the next time it is activated, it will be bound to the same persistent-volume-claim and therefore have access to its previous data.
• If reactivated, a pod is redeployed that uses the previous persistent-volume-claim to resume working on the data from previous sessions

Obviously, looking at the available Kubernetes tools/objects, a stateful-set with headless-service is the ideal way of approaching this. It supports unique pods, which are assigned unique IPs, and supports persistent volumes. It also supports dynamically provisioning persistent-volumes through

The Problem:

As mentioned in the domain, accounts can be active in any order, but stateful-set pods are ordinal, meaning pod_1 has to be active for pod_2 to be active for pod_3 to be active, etc. We can't have pod_1 active and pod_3 active while pod_2 is inactive. This means if I enable Account_A, then Account_C, a pod named pod_1 will be created, and then a pod named pod_2 will be created.

Now you might say that this isn't a problem. We just keep a map that maps each account to the relative pod_number. For example, Account_A -> pod_1 and Account_C -> pod_2

Why is this a problem? Because when specifying a volumeClaimTemplate in the stateful-set, persistent-volume-claims use the pod's name as their identifier when being created. Which means that only the pod with the same name can access the same data. The data(volumes) is bound based on a pod's name, rather than the account. This creates a disconnect between accounts and their persistent volumes. Any pod with name pod_2 will always have the same data that pod_2 has always had, regardless of which account was "mapped" to pod_2.

Let me further illustrate this with an example: