I'm having a similar problem, I'm looking into DRBD but the downside
here will be, if the head server goes down the clients won't
automatically switch over to the slave server...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org
> [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery Soo
> Sent: 29 November 2009 09:30
> To: gluster-users at gluster.org
> Subject: [Gluster-users] DRBD like performance?
>
> I had the intention of using GlusterFS to replace DRBD to setup a
> clustered/redundant webserver but so far the performance is
> about 7-8x
> slower than native due to the live writing feature that
> GlusterFS uses.
> Is it possible to have a setup like DRBD to improve performance?
>
> Basically I want to know if I can get the same functionality and
> performance of DRBD? I have 2 servers and with DRBD each
> server would
> perform all reads locally (giving native performance) and
> does not write
> data until it is fully written locally (delayed write I guess
> you could
> say). This way you get the replication but still get native
> performance.
>
> Is there a current way to setup GlusterFS like this in order
> to get this
> 'DRBD-like' functionality?
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>