On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Brandon Lamb <brandonlamb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Brandon Lamb <brandonlamb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I couldnt find anything related to this with a quick search. > > > > Lets take a case where we have 3 data servers, so we do AFR using > > unify. For unify we specify a namespace volume that exists on lets say > > server1. > > > > Ok so what happens when server1 goes down, now there is no namespace. > > What are the implications and is there a common solution to avoid > > this? > > http://gluster.org/docs/index.php/Aggregating_Three_Storage_Servers_with_Unify > > Ok so I started to attempt to create a 3 server 2 client setup. I > thought I would use 3 servers and i would only want 2 copies of files. > I thought to do this you needed afr + unify. > > However, AFR uses the number of servers as the number of copies, so > even using 3 servers I dont see a reason to use unify? Wont it just > send every write to all 3 servers anyway? So what is unify doing in > the example? > > Is that just a bad example that I am trying to follow? http://gluster.org/docs/index.php/Understanding_Unify_Translator I just finished reading the very bottom of this page. So what I got from that page is that if the server which holds the namespace goes down, something bad will happen? So what is the "recommended" solution for this? Have a seperate machine that does nothing export only a name space directory? At least until 1.4 and having the addition of distributed namespace?
