Re: stripe 2 replica 2 VS disperse 4 redundancy 2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06/17/2016 03:05 AM, Manuel Padrón Martínez wrote:
Hi:

I have a big doubt.
I have 2 servers with 2 disks of 2 TB each. I've been thinking to create a volume with stripe 2 replica 2 creating a brick with each disk and using server1:/b1 server2:/b1 server1:/b2 server2:/b2.
Striping is not actively developed. Sharding [1] is the successor to it.
This seems to work fine 4TB of space and if one disk or even one server fails the volume is still there. But I just found disperse volumes, I understand that disperse 4 redundancy 2 work in the same way.

Any suggestion on which solution is better?
It depends on your workload really.
  which one is faster?
Replica volumes are faster than disperse because there is no erasure code math to be done during I/O but as is obvious, you'd get less volume space than disperse.
which one you'll recommend?
For high I/O rate workloads, replica could be a better choice. You should try both and see what works best for you.
Btw, you need 6 bricks for a 4+2 disperse configuration.

-Ravi

[1] http://blog.gluster.org/2015/12/introducing-shard-translator/


Thanks from Canary Islands

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


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




[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Development]     [Linux Filesytems Development]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux