Gluster users - Sep 2016 - Production cluster planning

2016-09-20 11:57 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu at
redhat.com>:
> I would suggest to use separate volumes for this, because the optimizations
> for VM image store on the volume would slow things down for webservers kind
> of workload IMHO. Most of the perf xlators should be disabled in VM image
> store usecase.
Different volumes means different bricks/disks, right?
So, if I would like to have all replicated 3 times (1 disk per server)
with 2 volumes, i have to put at least 2 disks per server?
> 2hosts in replica plus arbiter.
Any differences between replica2 + arbiter or replica3 without arbiter?
Replica 3 should be more safe, as data are replicated 3 times.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <
gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-09-20 11:57 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu at
redhat.com>:
> > I would suggest to use separate volumes for this, because the
> optimizations
> > for VM image store on the volume would slow things down for webservers
> kind
> > of workload IMHO. Most of the perf xlators should be disabled in VM
image
> > store usecase.
>
> Different volumes means different bricks/disks, right?
>
Yes
> So, if I would like to have all replicated 3 times (1 disk per server)
> with 2 volumes, i have to put at least 2 disks per server?
>
Ideally yes.

> > 2hosts in replica plus arbiter.
>
> Any differences between replica2 + arbiter or replica3 without arbiter?
> Replica 3 should be more safe, as data are replicated 3 times.
>
Replica 3 is more costly compared to Arbiter. If you are comfortable with
replica-3 that is the best option.


-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160920/7cea7ac4/attachment.html>