2012/4/29 Brian Candler <B.Candler at pobox.com> > > Yes. I considered that too. What you have to weigh it up against is the > management overhead: > > - recognising a failed disk > - replacing a failed disk (which involves creating a new XFS filesystem > and mounting it at the right place) > - forcing a self-heal > > Whereas detecting a failed RAID disk is straightforward, and so is swapping > it out. > So, what will you do? RAID1? No raid? How does gluster detect a failed disk with no raid? What I don't understand is how gluster will detect a failure on a disk and the reply with data on the other server. With a raid controller, if controller detect a failure, will reply with KO to the operating system, but with no raid? What will happens? Is safer to use a 24 disks server with no raid and with 24 replicated and distributed bricks (24 on one server and 24 on other server)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120429/d6b0c356/attachment.htm>
