Gluster users - May 2017 - disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES

8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions. 
You can create 16+3 volume without any issue. 

Ashish 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.tech at gmail.com> 
To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org> 
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM 
Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES 

Hi 

we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the RHES
guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8. Is there any
reason for this. I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, but as we
have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3. Dropping to
8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us.

Thanks, 


Alastair 


_______________________________________________ 
Gluster-users mailing list 
Gluster-users at gluster.org 
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170505/6c0d8810/attachment.html>

Healing gets slower as you increase m in m+n configuration.
We are using 16+4 configuration without any problems other then heal speed.
I tested heal speed with 8+2 and 16+4 on 3.9.0 and see that heals on
8+2 is faster by 2x.


On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspandey at redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> 8+2 and 8+3 configurations are not the limitation but just suggestions.
> You can create 16+3 volume without any issue.
>
> Ashish
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Alastair Neil" <ajneil.tech at gmail.com>
> To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:23:32 AM
> Subject: [Gluster-users] disperse volume brick counts limits in RHES
>
>
> Hi
>
> we are deploying a large (24node/45brick) cluster and noted that the RHES
> guidelines limit the number of data bricks in a disperse set to 8.  Is
there
> any reason for this.  I am aware that you want this to be a power of 2, but
> as we have a large number of nodes we were planning on going with 16+3.
> Dropping to 8+2 or 8+3 will be a real waste for us.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Alastair
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users