In the sample config for a 2-server mirror setup at: http://gluster.org/docs/index.php/Automatic_File_Replication_(Mirror)_across_Two_Storage_Servers both volumes are considered remote and use tcp as transport-type. If you intend to use a local volume as one of the 2 servers in a mirrored setup, is there any advantage in defining glusterfs.vol as below? volume remote type protocol/client option transport-type tcp option remote-host w.x.y.z option remote-subvolume brick end-volume volume posix type storage/posix option directory /localstoragedir end-volume volume local type features/posix-locks subvolumes posix end-volume volume replicate type cluster/replicate subvolumes local remote end-volume =======================http://www.neotitans.com Web and IT Consulting
In the sample config for a 2-server mirror setup at: http://gluster.org/docs/index.php/Automatic_File_Replication_(Mirror)_across_Two_Storage_Servers both volumes are considered remote and use tcp as transport-type. If you intend to use a local volume as one of the 2 servers in a mirrored setup, is there any advantage in defining glusterfs.vol as below? volume remote type protocol/client option transport-type tcp option remote-host w.x.y.z option remote-subvolume brick end-volume volume posix type storage/posix option directory /localstoragedir end-volume volume local type features/posix-locks subvolumes posix end-volume volume replicate type cluster/replicate subvolumes local remote end-volume =======================http://www.neotitans.com Web and IT Consulting
----- "Andy Sy" <andy.sy at neotitans.com> wrote:> In the sample config for a 2-server mirror setup at: > > http://gluster.org/docs/index.php/Automatic_File_Replication_(Mirror)_across_Two_Storage_Servers > > both volumes are considered remote and use > tcp as transport-type. If you intend to use > a local volume as one of the 2 servers in a > mirrored setup, is there any advantage in defining > glusterfs.vol as below?There'll be a slight performance advantage since it will avoid the local (loopback) network latency. Vikas -- Engineer - http://gluster.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Sy" <andy.sy at neotitans.com> To: gluster-users at gluster.org Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:45:28 PM GMT +04:00 Abu Dhabi / Muscat Subject: [Gluster-users] Question re 2-server Mirrored setup In the sample config for a 2-server mirror setup at: http://gluster.org/docs/index.php/Automatic_File_Replication_(Mirror)_across_Two_Storage_Servers both volumes are considered remote and use tcp as transport-type. If you intend to use a local volume as one of the 2 servers in a mirrored setup, is there any advantage in defining glusterfs.vol as below? volume remote type protocol/client option transport-type tcp option remote-host w.x.y.z option remote-subvolume brick end-volume volume posix type storage/posix option directory /localstoragedir end-volume volume local type features/posix-locks subvolumes posix end-volume volume replicate type cluster/replicate subvolumes local remote end-volume yes, with read-subvolume specified to be local, reads will be faster. Also, since first child of replicate will be lock-server, keeping the local subvolume as first child will increase performance. read-subvolume to replicate can be specified using "option read-subvolume local" =======================http://www.neotitans.com Web and IT Consulting _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users