On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Krishna Srinivas <krishna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Brandon Lamb <brandonlamb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Faster interconnect hardware costs lots of $$$. Wouldnt there be less > > servers in most cases, meaning less hardware to buy? > > > > I just took a look at infiniband hardware, its expensive. If I wanted > > to upgrade my network, I would much rather upgrade my server machines > > at 2-4 computer instead of 10 mail servers, 4 web servers AND 2-4 > > server machines. > > > > Although you still have that problem of server2 going down and having > > a client connected to it directly. But I guess couldnt you use LVS or > > something to failover to the other servers that are up? > > > > What other cons are there to server side afr am I missing (other than > > the whole cluster doesnt work if one server goes down)? > > > This problem you faced should have worked, I have asked you for clues > from the logs in other thread. > > > > > > If using server side afr, and a client does a write, is this faster > > when it only has to send the write to one server, or does it still > > have to wait for the server to replicate to the other servers and > > reply back that the write was successful on all servers? That might be > > worded strangely... > > Correct, server will write to other servers before returning the call. > You could use write-behind for it, you could also use it on the client > side. A clear performance measure comparing both the setup > will give an idea on which is better. > > Krishna > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel Ok I will set this up again but change the order of the subvolumes on client2 and try again and get a copy of the logs.
