On 08/29/2012 08:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> If we were rich, I guess we would have two (or more) "geo-replicated" glusters and >>> be able to withstand one failing... >>> I would like the same trust level that I have in RAID. >> I have routinely used DRBD for things like this ... 2 servers, one a >> complete failover of the other one. Of course, that requires a 50+ TB >> file system on each machine. > How well do glusterfs or drbd deal with downtime of one of the > members? Do they catch up quickly with incremental updates and what > kind of impact does that have on performance as it happens? And is > either suitable for running over distances where there is some network > latency? > Well, DRBD is a tried and true solution, but it requires dedicated boxes and crossover network connections, etc. I would consider it by far the best method for providing critical failover. I would consider gluserfs almost a different thing entirely ... it provides the ability to string several partitions on different machines into one shared network volume. Glusterfs does also provide redundancy if you set it up that way ... and if you have a fast network and enough volumes then the performance is not very degraded when a gluster volume comes back, etc. However, I don't think I would trust extremely critical things on glusterfs at this point.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
