On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:51:17 -0800 Jeff Anderson-Lee <jonah at eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > On 11/16/2010 05:36 AM, Stefano Baronio wrote: > > Hi MArtin, > > the XenServer Dom0 is 32bit whilst the hypervisor is 64 bit. > > You need to know it when you install third part sw on the host. > > http://forums.citrix.com/thread.jspa?threadID=269924&tstart=0 > > > > So I need the 32bit compiled version to be able to mount glusterfs directly > > from the XenServer host. > > > The built-in NFS module is typically as fast or faster than using the > fuse wrapper on the client side. So the best way to support 32-bit > clients is likely via NFS. NFS is really something completely different. And - what is also ignored - the infrastructure usage is completely different when using nfs. nfs does not replicate at the client side, which means that the data paths explicitly built for client replication are useless for nfs. Using the nfs translator leads to server-server replication. For that case a data path exclusively used for this server traffic would be best (because it cannot interfere with 64 bit client replication). So if you happen to upgrade a 2.0.9 setup with 64 bit servers and 64 as well as 32 bit clients you have to redesign the network for best performance _and_ glusterfsd on the servers have to use the shortest data path for the nfss' data replication (which I don't know if they are able to do that at all). In other words: whereas the setup in 2.0.9 was clear and simple, the very same usage case in 3.X is a _mess_. Obviously nobody really thought about that - unbelievable for me as it is really obvious. But I got accustomed to that situation because up to the current day there is no solution for another most obvious problem: which files are not in sync in a replication setup? There is no trivial answer to this question I already brought up in early 2.X development phase... How can you sell someone a storage platform if you're unable to answer such an essential question? Really, nobody needed auto-healing. All you need is the answer to this question and then stat exactly this file list at a time _of your choice_. The good thing about 2.0.X was that you as an admin had quite full control over things. in 3.X you have exactly nothing, the deamons are talking with each other about whatever and hopefully things work out. That is no setup I want to be an admin. Regards, Stephan > > Cheers > > Stefano > > > > > > 2010/11/16 Deadpan110<deadpan110 at gmail.com> > > > > > >> My home testing environment I also use XenServer (again, Citrix - with > >> a Centos minimalistic core OS) - even though the Dom0 is 64bit, in any > >> Xen setup (maybe even for other virtuali[s\z]ation solutions), > >> performance is better using 32bit VM's (DomU). > >> > >> My production environment comprises of Xen virtual machines (not > >> XenServer, but still Xen), scattered around a remote datacenter. > >> > >> I too will be sharing my experiences as GlusterFS offers exactly what > >> I need and would like to deploy. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> On 16 November 2010 20:39, Stefano Baronio<stefano.baronio at gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> From my point of view, 64 bit on server side is easy to handle but the > >>> client side can have different needs and limitations. > >>> For example, we are using XenServer from Citrix, the Dom0 is taken from a > >>> CentOS 5 distro and it is 32bit. I cannot change that, because is a > >>> > >> Citrix > >> > >>> design choice and there might be lots of these situations around. > >>> Sorry but I can't code any patches.. > >>> Anyway, I will share what our experience will be with 32bit client. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Stefano > >>> > >>> > >>> 2010/11/16 Bernard Li<bernard at vanhpc.org> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Christian: > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Christian Fischer > >>>> <christian.fischer at easterngraphics.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> No statement from the developers about usability of glusterfs client > >>>>> > >> on > >> > >>>> 32bit > >>>> > >>>>> systems. But this was probably discussed in earlier threads. > >>>>> > >>>> I believe the official comment is that Gluster is not going to support > >>>> 32-bit systems. However, it doesn't mean that the community cannot > >>>> support it. If we find bugs and can code up patches, we should still > >>>> file a bug and submit the patches and hopefully they will be checked > >>>> into the official repository. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Bernard > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Gluster-users mailing list > >>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org > >>>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gluster-users mailing list > >>> Gluster-users at gluster.org > >>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-users mailing list > > Gluster-users at gluster.org > > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > >
