Sorry, example of 5 servers should read > server1 A & B replica to server 2 C & D > server2 A & B replica to server 3 C & D > server3 A & B replica to server 4 C & D > server4 A & B replica to server 5 C & D > server5 A & B replica to server 1 C & D Adding each server should be as simple as using the brick-replace command to move bricks C and D from server1 onto bricks C and D of the new server. Then you can add-brick to create 2 new brick replicas from new server A and B to server1 C and D. > On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Russell Purinton <russell.purinton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The fault tolerance is provided by Gluster replica translator. > > RAID0 to me is preferable to JBOD because you get 3x read performance and 3x write performance. If performance is not a concern, or if you only have 1GbE, then it may not matter, and you could just do JBOD with a ton of bricks. > > The same method scales to how ever many servers you need… imagine them in a ring… > > server1 A & B replica to server 2 C & D > server2 A & B replica to server 3 C & D > server3 A & B replica to server 1 C & D > > Adding a 4th server? No problem… you can move the reconfigure the bricks to do > server1 A & B replica to server 2 C & D > server2 A & B replica to server 3 C & D > server3 A & B replica to server 4 C & D > server4 A & B replica to server 1 C & D > > or 5 servers > server1 A & B replica to server 2 C & D > server2 A & B replica to server 3 C & D > server3 A & B replica to server 4 C & D > server4 A & B replica to server 5 C & D > server5 A & B replica to server 6 C & D > > I guess my recommendation is not the best for redundancy and data protection… because I’m concerned with performance, and space, as long as I have 2 copies of the data on different servers then I’m happy. > > If you care more about performance than space, and want extra data redundancy (more than 2 copies), then use RAID 10 on the nodes, and use gluster replica. This means you have every byte of data on 4 disks. > > If you care more about space than performance and want extra redundancy use RAID 6, and gluster replica. > > I always recommend gluster replica, because several times I have lost entire servers… and its nice to have the data on more than server. > >> On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <gandalf.corvotempesta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 2016-07-04 19:44 GMT+02:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta >> <gandalf.corvotempesta@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> So, any disk failure would me at least 6TB to be recovered via >>> network. This mean an high network utilization and as long gluster >>> doesn't have a dedicated network for replica, >>> this can slow down client access. >> >> Additionally, using a RAID-0 doesn't give any fault tollerance. >> My question was for archieving the bast redundancy and data proction >> available. If I have to use RAID-0 that doesn't protect data, why not >> removing raid at all ? > _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
