No it's of course not a working solution. But what I meant is that you should not trust the storage medium too much. or drbd perhaps ? /Marcus On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM, <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 9 May 2008, Marcus Herou wrote: > > Ok so the mantra is: Backup as often as you can afford :) >> > > I don't really see that as being a workable solution. > > However if an index is corrupt it's not a big deal since the data is not >> connected to the >> index itself but rather stored elsewhere. Actually it will probably be >> stored with GlusterFS >> as well but with another access pattern which I hope will not run int >> these issues. This data >> will probably be rolled out on tape or such every night and a hot backup >> be kept somewhere >> just in case. >> > > The problem is that hot backups will also be synced to the old version. > Something like CopyFS on top of GlusterFS might give you what you need WRT > backups, but I'm not sure how that would cope with versioning number resets > and suchlike, and whether a broken sync would utterly break it. > > > Gordan > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > -- Marcus Herou CTO and co-founder Tailsweep AB +46702561312 marcus.herou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.tailsweep.com/ http://blogg.tailsweep.com/
