On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:06:56 -0500 Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/16/2013 12:41 PM, Gustavo Bervian Brand wrote: > > Finally, let's get back to my original configuration with both > > subvolumes as "protocol/client" types: it works ok until I try something > > unusual, which is pointing at the server side of both nodes their > > "posix" type subvolumes to the same shared path. This path is a mount > > point shared by both nodes through a lustre FS. In this case, both posix > > subvolumes, at the backend, are writing to the same place. Should I > > expect this to work without problems or changes at the posix translator > > would be necessary? > > Bricks *must* use separate storage. Even if there's a reason to create > bricks on top of shared storage (and you've accurately guessed my > reaction to that) they should be in separate subdirectories. Otherwise > they will definitely step on each other's "private" information in > .glusterfs, and the level of change that would be necessary to make them > work a different way is considerable. rename ".glusterfs" in ".glusterfs-<brickname>" in source better: make ".glusterfs" a dir and store brick-private information in a file <brickname> and global (shared) information in a file "global". Can as well be used to mark bricks online/offline and several other missing things. -- Regards, Stephan
