Hi Tom, You need unify of afr volumes. 3 copies of 8 servers is slightly odd to pair. Though you have options.. 1) 1-2-3, 4-5-6, 7-8-1 2) 1-2-3, 4-5-6, 7-8 3) 1-2-3, 2-3-4, 3-4-5 4-5-6 5-6-7 6-7-8 My recommendation is to go for 9 servers if you are looking for 3 copies of all files. Upgrading in pairs of 3 becomes easier at a later stage. Please refer to this documentation: http://www.gluster.org/docs/index.php/Unify_over_AFR Happy Hacking, -- Anand Babu Periasamy GPG Key ID: 0x62E15A31 Blog [http://ab.freeshell.org] The GNU Operating System [http://www.gnu.org] Z RESEARCH Inc [http://www.zresearch.com] Tom Lahti wrote: > Currently it would seem that AFR will simply copy everything to every > brick in the AFR. If I did something like ... > > volume afr-example > type cluster/afr > subvolumes brick1 brick2 brick3 brick4 brick5 brick6 brick7 brick8 > end-volume > > I would wind up with 8 copies of every file. Clearly, this is too many. > What I would rather have is maybe 3 copies of each file distributed > randomly across 3 servers, so that I could still have 2 servers fail and > have all data available, but without using up unnecessary space on the > other 5. The 3 would need to be round-robined in some manner so as to > distribute the disk utilization. First file goes on brick1 brick2 > brick3, 2nd file goes on brick2 brick3 brick4, etc. > > It seems that AFR used to have this with "option relicate *:3" but that > was removed. The supposed replacement for that, the switch scheduler, > doesn't really have the same functionality. > > Unless there is a undocumented form of the "option switch.case" > statement that I have yet to see. Can I do "option switch.case *:3" or > some such? >
