On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:10:40PM +0200, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > 2012/4/30 Brian Candler <[1]B.Candler at pobox.com> > > However it doesn't give me resilience against server failure, unless > I have > a distributed volume across two servers, which with RAID10 as well > means > each block is written to 4 separate disks. > > Distribution across two servers is implied as we are talking about > gluster and not about a standard raid. Sorry, my mistake, I meant to say "replicated volume". > So, we have to create a DISTRIBUTED AND REPLICATED gluster volume with > at least 2 servers. > On each server, which is the best way to manage disks? RAID10? No RAID? > RAID0? I definitely wouldn't go RAID0: one disk failed will toast the whole volume, and you'll have to heal the whole lot (i.e. copy from the other server). And if one disk fails in the other server in the mean time, your entire dataset is lost. Your main options are: - RAID10 on each server, a few large bricks, distributed volume - separate filesystem on each disk, lots of tiny bricks, distributed+replicated volume - RAID10 on each server PLUS replicated between servers There are pros and cons to each, so your choice may not be the same as my choice.
