|
Le 03/03/2016 15:07, Krutika Dhananjay
a écrit :
Ok, and what version of glusterfs are you using?
At this time I'm using glusterfs 3.6.7 on Debian 8 (64bit), same OS
on servers and clients.
--
Y.
-Krutika
From: "Yannick
Perret" <yannick.perret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Krutika Dhananjay" <kdhananj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 7:23:09 PM
Subject: Re: Per-client prefered
server?
Le 03/03/2016 13:18, Krutika
Dhananjay a écrit :
What does "nearest" storage server mean? Are the
clients residing in the storage pool too? Or are they
external to the cluster?
They are external.
Nearest means that they are in the same building, linked by
the same switch. Machines in the other building are rooted via
some more equipments.
--
Y.
-Krutika
From: "Yannick
Perret" <yannick.perret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 5:38:33 PM
Subject: Per-client prefered
server?
Hello,
I can't find if it is possible to set a prefered server
on a per-client
basis for replica volumes, so I ask the question here.
The context: we have 2 storage servers, each in one
building. We also
have several virtual machines on each building, and they
can migrate
from one building to an other (depending on load,
maintenance…).
So (for testing at this time) I setup a x2 replica
volume, one replica
on each storage server of course. As most of our volumes
are "many reads
- few writes" it would be better for bandwidth that each
client uses the
"nearest" storage server (local building switch) - for
reading, of
course. The 2 buildings have a good netlink but we
prefer to minimize -
when not needed - data transferts beetween them (this
link is shared).
Can you see a solution for this kind of tuning? As far
as I understand
geo-replica is not really what I need, no?
It exists "cluster.read-subvolume" option of course but
we can have
clients on both building so a per-volume option is not
what we need. An
per-client equivalent of this option should be nice.
I tested by myself a small patch to perform this - and
it seems to work
fine as far as I can see - but 1. before continuing in
this way I would
first check if it exists an other way and 2. I'm not
familiar with the
whole code so I'm not sure that my tests are in the
"state-of-the-art"
for glusterfs.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Regards,
--
Y.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
|
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: Signature cryptographique S/MIME
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
