> I do not understand why it could be a problem to place the data's replica on > a different node group. > If a group of node become unavailable (due to datacenter failure, for > example) volume should remain online, using the second group. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're talking about initial placement of replicas, we can place all members of each replica set in different node groups (e.g. racks). If you're talking about adding new replica members when a previous one has failed, then the question is *when*. Re-populating a new replica can be very expensive. It's not worth starting if the previously failed replica is likely to come back before you're done. We provide the tools (e.g. replace-brick) to deal with longer term or even permanent failures, but we don't re-replicate automatically. Is that what you're talking about? _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
