Jeff Darcy
2017-Feb-07 16:27 UTC
[Gluster-users] Remove an artificial limitation of disperse volume
----- Original Message -----> Okay so the 4 nodes thing is a kind of exception? What about 8 nodes > with redundancy 4? > > I made a table to recap possible configurations, can you take a quick > look and tell me if it's OK? > > Here: https://gist.github.com/olivierlambert/8d530ac11b10dd8aac95749681f19d2cAs I understand it, the "power of two" thing is only about maximum efficiency, and other values can work without wasting space (they'll just be a bit slower). So, for example, with 12 disks you would be able to do 10+2 and get 83% space efficiency. Xavier's the expert, though, so it's probably best to let him clarify.
Olivier Lambert
2017-Feb-07 16:29 UTC
[Gluster-users] Remove an artificial limitation of disperse volume
Yep, but if I hit a 30% penalty, I don't want that :) Any idea of the perf impact? I'll probably contact Xavier directly if he's not here! On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Okay so the 4 nodes thing is a kind of exception? What about 8 nodes >> with redundancy 4? >> >> I made a table to recap possible configurations, can you take a quick >> look and tell me if it's OK? >> >> Here: https://gist.github.com/olivierlambert/8d530ac11b10dd8aac95749681f19d2c > > As I understand it, the "power of two" thing is only about maximum > efficiency, and other values can work without wasting space (they'll > just be a bit slower). So, for example, with 12 disks you would be > able to do 10+2 and get 83% space efficiency. Xavier's the expert, > though, so it's probably best to let him clarify.