I'm testing with lscynd now to sync remote clusters (ours running gluster, others may be, may not be) and it's working well. Also look at http://code.google.com/p/pylsyncd/ which boasts: "The main advantage of pylsyncd against lsyncd is that it uses message queues in order to synchronize in a parallel way several destination servers, saving up time when it is required to have more than one destination. It has been tested in heavy loaded environments." P On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > anthony garnier wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I'd like to know if gluster developpers intend to develop a module option >> for Asynchronous replication ? >> >> Let me know if you got some informations. > > I think you may be trying to use the wrong tool for the job here. If you > really want asynchronous replication (no concurrent access arbitration, > locking, and other things that wouldn't work asynchronously), then perhaps > lsyncd (http://code.google.com/p/lsyncd/) would be a better tool for the job > (make sure you use the svn trunk version, it has a number of important bug > fixes in it). > > GlusterFS is a great _cluster_ file system with rather unique benefits, but > if you really want to play _that_ fast and loose, and throw away the > consistency-ensuring constraints (and since you want async replication, it > sounds like you do), you can cut a few more corners to gain a lot of extra > performance. Just make sure you are aware of the limitations and > consequences of this - concurrent file writes _will_ lead to race conditions > which will trash your data. > > Gordan > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > -- http://philcryer.com
