On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Maher <dma+gluster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:05:44 +0200 Daniel Maher <dma+gluster@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > Are we or are we not supposed to use the Unify translator in > > conjunction with AFR ? > > > > If we are, why does it cause the mountpoint to fail if one of the > > AFR'd nodes fails, and how can this be solved ? > > > > If we are not, what is the recommended way to implement a namespace > > with AFR ? > > > > For reference purposes, the relavent threads are : > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2008-04/msg00074.html > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2008-04/msg00078.html > > Upon further reflection, the namespace is clearly only required if > using AFR, therefore i retract the third of the three questions. Namespace is required for unify. > > The first two, however, remain outstanding : are we or are we not > supposed to use Unify with the AFR translator, and if so, can the > cluster be made to be fault tolerant (i.e. downed node(s)) in this > context ? AFR can be used with unify. It was just that that setup did not work we have to look into why it did not work. We normally do not use that kind of setup, so it has gone untested. i.e using client over unify. Check out other example configs regarding how afr and unify are used to provide redundancy. Regards Krishna > > > > > -- > Daniel Maher <dma AT witbe.net> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >
