On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Krishna Srinivas <krishna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:04 PM, <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 May 2008, Krishna Srinivas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If server-side AFR breaks with fail-over, is it possible to use > > server-side > > > > > > > > AFR on some nodes and client-side AFR on others, with the client side > > AFR > > > > nodes talking directly to the same storage bricks that the server side > > AFR > > > > is unifying for server-side AFR nodes? > > > > > > > > Or would this break things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will not break things as long as the afr's subvol listing order are > > same. > > > > > > > Is this an issue in server-side-only AFR? I have two servers which are also > > clients of themselves, and they both list their local subvolume first and > > remote subvolume second. Is this a problem? What are the possible > > consequences of this? > > It will be a problem. The "first" subvol is always the "lock" server. > Consider a case where you are creating a file simultaneously > on two clients, only one of them should succeed. If AFR's > subvols order are not same, chances are that both client > returns success for file creation with same name. Hence you have "option read-subvlume" to speeden the read() calls so that it can be done from local subvol. > > Krishna > > > > > > > > > > > > Gordan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > >
