On 01/12/2016 01:26 PM, Pawan Devaiah wrote:> Thanks for your response Pranith and Mathieu,
>
> Pranith: To answer your question, I am planning to use this storage
> for two main workloads.
>
> 1. As a shared storage for VMs.
EC as it is today is not good for this.> 2. As a NFS Storage for files.
If the above is for storing archive data. EC is nice here.
Pranith>
> We are a online backup company so we store few hundred Terra bytes of
> data.
>
>
> Mathieu: I appreciate your concern, however as a system admins
> sometimes we get paranoid and try to control everything under the Sun.
> I know I can only control what I can.
>
> Having said that, No, I have pair of servers to start with so at the
> moment I am just evaluating and preparing for proof of concept, after
> which I am going to propose to my management, if they are happy then
> we will proceed further.
>
> Regards,
> Dev
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Mathieu Chateau
> <mathieu.chateau at lotp.fr <mailto:mathieu.chateau at
lotp.fr>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> For any system, 36 disks raise disk failure probability. Do you
> plan GlusterFS with only one server?
>
> You should think about failure at each level and be prepared for it:
>
> * Motherboard failure (full server down)
> * Disks failure
> * Network cable failure
> * File system corruption (time needed for fsck)
> * File/folder removed by mistake (backup)
>
> Using or not raid depend on your answer on these questions and
> performance needed.
> It also depend how "good" is raid controller in your server,
like
> if it has battery and 1GB of cache.
>
> When many disks are bought at same time (1 order, serial number
> close to each other), they may fail in near time to each other (if
> something bad happened in manufactory).
> I already saw like 3 disks failing in few days.
>
> just my 2 cents,
>
>
>
> Cordialement,
> Mathieu CHATEAU
> http://www.lotp.fr
>
> 2016-01-12 4:36 GMT+01:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri
> <pkarampu at redhat.com <mailto:pkarampu at redhat.com>>:
>
>
>
> On 01/12/2016 04:34 AM, Pawan Devaiah wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We have a fairly powerful server sitting at office with 128
>> Gig RAM and 36 X 4 TB drives. I am planning to utilize this
>> server as a backend storage with GlusterFS on it.
>> I have been doing lot of reading on Glusterfs, but I do not
>> see any definite recommendation on having RAID on GLUSTER
nodes.
>> Is it recommended to have RAID on GLUSTER nodes specially for
>> the bricks?
>> If Yes, is it not contrary to the latest Erasure code
>> implemented in Gluster or is it still not ready for
>> production environment?
>> I am happy to implement RAID but my two main concern are
>> 1. I want to make most of the disk space available.
>> 2. I am also concerned about the rebuild time after disk
>> failure on the RAID.
> What is the workload you have?
>
> We found in our testing that random read/write workload with
> Erasure coded volumes is not as good as we get with
> replication. There are enhancements in progress at the moment
> to address these things which we are yet to merge and re-test.
>
> Pranith
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users at
gluster.org>
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-users at
gluster.org>
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160112/e84b920c/attachment.html>