On 02/17/2017 10:13 AM, Gambit15 wrote:
This is as much of a question as a comment. My impression is that distributed filesystems like Gluster shine where the number if bricks is close to the number of servers and both of those numbers are as large as possible. So the ideal solution would be 90 disks as 90 bricks on 90 servers. This would be hard to do in practice but the point of Gluster is to try and spread the load and potential failures over a large surface. Putting all the disks into a big RAID array and then just duplicating that for redundancy is not much better than using something like DRBD which would likely perform faster but be less scaleable. In the end with big RAID arrays and fewer servers you have a smaller surface to absorb failures. Over the years I have seen raid systems fail because users put them in and forget about them and then see system failures becasue they did not monitor the raid arrays. I would be willing to bet that 80%+ of all the raid arrays out there are not monitored. Gluster is more in your face about failures and arguably should be more reliable in practice because you will know quickly about a failure. Feel free to correct my misconceptions. -- Alvin Starr || voice: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@xxxxxxxxxx || |
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
