On Jul 7, 2010, at 19:03 , Jeff Darcy wrote: > On 07/07/2010 07:13 AM, Matthias Munnich wrote: >> thanks a lot for your comment! It sounds like I hit a bug here. Would >> you still feel queasy if I added "option lookup-unhashed yes" to avoid dht? > > I don't think that will really avoid dht, especially the > extended-attribute parts that are the likely cause of conflict with nufa. > >> What I reported here was some initial testing. In the end I like to use >> glusterfs to provide a uniform name space for our O(20) workstations >> with lokal storage of 4 to 16TB. The data should be mirrored (once) >> for reliability and stored locally were possible for speed. I also >> would prefer not to glue together local disk using LVM or software >> raid to keep it easy to add/remove disks without having to expand a >> filesystem. >> >> Any hints how to set this up with glusterfs? > > I think you can get "close enough" with just nufa on top of replicate. > If you have two disks per machine, no matter how many machines you have, > assign one to be active and one passive. Pair each active to a passive > on another node however you like using cluster/replicate, then combine > all of those using cluster/nufa with local-volume-name pointing to the > replica pair where the active half is local. If you had more than two > disks per machine, this wouldn't work quite as well but the differences > should be minor. If that's not good enough, I just looked at the code > and it doesn't seem like it would be hard to make nufa recognize > multiple volumes (instead of just one) as local. If you'd like, I could > try generating and submitting a patch for that. This would be REAL COOL!!! Most of our machines hold 4 disk and a few up to 8. Thanks so much for the help! ... Matt > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users Matt langelino at gmx.net
