Hi,
What I meant was that every host acts as nfs server for itself alone. A is mounted on A, B is mounted on B etc. So, if a host is crashed or storage of the host is not available, other hosts won't be affected.
And how bad can be the performance overhead in having multiple nfs servers?
Regards,
Jeevan.
On Nov 15, 2017 10:07 AM, "Soumya Koduri" <skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,IIUC, you are planning to use gluster native client (via FUSE) mounts act as NFS server by exporting those mount paths via Kernel-NFS/NFS-Ganesha. If thats the case, yes it shall add a bit of overhead to the performance.
On 11/14/2017 11:45 PM, Jeevan Patnaik wrote:
Hi,
We have around 60 hosts and each of them acts as glusterFs clients as well as server.
To achieve HA, my underatanding is that we can use Ganesha NFS alone (and not Kernel NFS) and for above 3.10 versions, the HA packages are not ready yet.
So, I'm thinking if I can avoid HA by making each client acts as server for itself.
i.e.,the server name specified while mounting is localhost.
Also without HA packages, wouldn't that NFS server become single point of failure to its NFS clients. How will you ensure the IPs used by that particular host migrates to another one.
Thanks,
Soumya
______________________________
So, if a host have issues, then it won't affect other hosts and no need for HA.
But will there be any performance impact in having too many glusterFs servers?
Regards,
Jeevan.
_________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
