Re: geo-replication vs replicated volumes

[Gabriel Kuri <gkuri@xxxxxxxx>]

> glusterfs doesn't support master-master yet. In your case, one of the servers (A or B or C) should be a master and your client should write to only that volume.
> Other two volumes should be read-only till volume in server-A fails for some reason.

So the writes from the client will go directly to whichever server is the master, even though the client has mounted the volume on one of the slaves? What about the reads, do they still hit the server (ie slave) the client is connected to or do the reads hit the master as well?

In the case of geo-rep, how is split-brain handled? If the network is down between server A (master) and server B (slave) and the client has mounted to server B, I assume server B will then become the master and writes will then be committed directly to server B, but if writes were also committed to server A by other clients while the network was down, what happens when the network is back up between server A and B, does it just figure out which files had the most recent time stamp and commit those changes across all the servers?

>> If it's not master-master, how does one get master-master replication working over a WAN?

> AFAIK, there is no work around as of now, at least I am not aware of it

Does the basic replicated volume work in this fashion, reads and writes to all servers? The only problem is it's meant for a low latency network environment?

Thanks ...

_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users