HI Strahil,
Thanx for your feedback.
I had already received your feedback which seems to be very useful.
You had pointed at
/var/lib/glusterd/groups/db-workload profile which includes recommended gluster volume settings for such work-loads (includes direct IO).
I will be testing this setup though I expect no issues apart from slower performance then native setup.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 9:45 PM Strahil Nikolov <hunter86_bg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Alex,
sorry for the late reply - seems you went to the SPAM dir.
I think that a DB with direct I/O won't have any issues with Gluster.As a second thought , DBs know their data file names , so even 1 file per table will work quite OK.
But you will need a lot of testing before putting something into production.
Best Regards,
Strahil Nikolov
В понеделник, 12 октомври 2020 г., 21:10:03 Гринуич+3, Alex K <rightkicktech@xxxxxxxxx> написа:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 19:24 Strahil Nikolov <hunter86_bg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I can share that oVirt is using Gluster as a HCI solution and many people are hosting DBs in their Virtual Machines.Yet, oVirt bypasses any file system caches and uses Direct I/O in order to ensure consistency.
>
> As you will be using pacemaker, drbd is a viable solution that can be controlled easily.
Thank you Strahil. I am using ovirt with glusterfs successfully for the last 5 years and I'm very happy about it. Though the vms gluster volume has sharding enabled by default and I suspect this is different if you run DB directly on top glusterfs. I assume there are optimizations one could apply at gluster volumes (use direct io?, small file workload optimizations, etc) and was hoping that there were success stories of DBs on top glusterfs. I might go with drbd as the latest version is much more scalable and simplified.
>
> Best Regards,
> Strahil Nikolov
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> В понеделник, 12 октомври 2020 г., 12:12:18 Гринуич+3, Alex K <rightkicktech@xxxxxxxxx> написа:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:47 AM Diego Zuccato <diego.zuccato@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Il 10/10/20 16:53, Alex K ha scritto:
>>
>>> Reading from the docs i see that this is not recommended?
>> IIUC the risk of having partially-unsynced data is is too high.
>> DB replication is not easy to configure because it's hard to do well,
>> even active/passive.
>> But I can tell you that a 3-node mariadb (galera) cluster is not hard to
>> setup. Just follow one of the tutorials. It's nearly as easy as setting
>> up a replica3 gluster volume :)
>> And "guarantees" consinstency in the DB data.
> I see. Since I will not have only mariadb, then I have to setup the same replication for postgresql and later influxdb, which adds into the complexity.
> For cluster management I will be using pacemaker/corosync.
>
> Thanx for your feedback
>
>>
>> --
>> Diego Zuccato
>> DIFA - Dip. di Fisica e Astronomia
>> Servizi Informatici
>> Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
>> V.le Berti-Pichat 6/2 - 40127 Bologna - Italy
>> tel.: +39 051 20 95786
>>
> ________
>
>
>
> Community Meeting Calendar:
>
> Schedule -
> Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
> Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968
>
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
________ Community Meeting Calendar: Schedule - Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968 Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
