On 05/03/2010 09:50 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > For purpose 1, clearly I'm looking at a replicated volume. For purpose > 2, I'm assuming that distributed is the way to go (rather than striped), > although for reliability reasons I'd likely go replicated then > distributed. For storage bricks, I'm looking at something like HP's 1. Yes. 2. Your call - both will work, but as you said, it's a question of in how many places you want the data to be. :) > 2) Is it frowned upon to create 2 volumes out of the same physical set of > disks? I'd like to maximize the spindle count in both volumes > (especially the scratch volume), but will it overly degrade > performance? Would it be better to simply create one replicated and > distributed volume and use that for both of the above purposes? I don't know about ? frowned ?, but my knee-jerk response would be to avoid that scenario. That said, it really all comes down to usage patterns ; if you're only serving data out of one volume at a time, then there's no problem, but if you're constantly using both... > 3) Is it crazy to think of doing a distributed (or NUFA) volume with the > scratch disks in the whole cluster? Especially given that we have > nodes of many ages and see not infrequent node crashes due to bad > memory/HDDs/user code? Again, ? crazy ? is a little strong, but again, it might not hurt to review your usage patterns before diving into the architecture. Who will access what, in what amounts, and at what speed, when ? Once this has been established, you can make better informed decisions about where to put the data, and how to let people access it (in fact, i would submit that many of your questions will answer themselves :) ). -- Daniel Maher <dma+gluster AT witbe DOT net>
