Hi. Thanks for your detailed answers. I'd like to clarify several points: 2008/12/3 Keith Freedman <freedman at freeformit.com> > I'm not sure there's an official recommendation. > I use XFS with much success. > Is XFS suitable for massive writing / occasional reading? > > I think the choice of underlying filesystem depends highly on the types of > data you'll be storing and how you'll be storing the info. > If it's primarily read data, then a filesystem with journaling capabilities > may not provide much benefit. If you'll have lots of files in few > directories then a filesystem with better large directory metrix would be > ideal, etc... Gluster depends on the underlying filesystem, and will work > no matter what that filesystem is provided it supports extended attributes. > I'm going to store mostly large files (100+ MB), with massive writing, and only occasional read operations. > > I've found XFS works great for most purposes. If you're on Solaris, I'd > recommend ZFS. but It seems people are fond of ReiserFS, but you could > certainly use EXT3 with extended attributes enabled and be just fine most > likely. > I'm actually prefer to stay on Linux. How well XFS compares to EXT3 in the environment that I described? > > as for LVM. again, this really depends what you want to do with the data. > If you need to use multiple physical devices/partitions to present just one > to gluster you can do that and use LVM to manage your resizing of the single > logical volume. This was the first idea I though about, as I'm going to use 4 disks per server. > > Alternatively, you could use gluster's Unify translator to present one > effective large/consolidated volume which can be made up of multiple > devices/partitions. > I think I read somewhere in this mailing list that there is a migration from Unity to DHT in GlusterFS (whichever it means) in the coming 1.4. If Unity is the legacy approach, what is the relevant solution for 1.4 (DHT)? > > In this scenario, you could potentially have multiple underlying > configurations. You could Unify xfs, reiser, and ext3 filesystems into one > gluster filesystem. > > as for RAID, again, the faster and more appropriately configured the > underlying system for your data requirements, the better off you will be. > If you're going to use gluster's AFR translator, then I'd not bother with > hardware raid/mirroring and just use RAID0 stripes, however, if you have the > money, and can afford to do RAID0+1, that's always a huge benefit on read > performance. Of course, if you're in a high write environment, then there's > no real added value so it's not worth doing. > Couple of points here: 1) Thanks to AFR, I actually don't need any fault-tolerant raid (like mirror), so it's only recommeded in high-volume read enviroments, which is not the case here. Is this correct? 2) Isn't LVM (or GlusterFS own solution) much better then RAID 0 in sense that if one of the disks go, the volume still continues to work? This contrary to RAID where the whole volume goes down? 3) Continuing 2, I think I actually meant JBOD - where you just connect all the drives and make them look as a single device, rather then stripping. If you could clarfy the recommended approach, it would be great. > > this doesn't realy answer your question, but hopefully it helps. > > > Thanks again for your help. Regards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://zresearch.com/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20081203/f944f8f2/attachment.htm
