On 05/03/2010 09:50 PM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
For purpose 1, clearly I'm looking at a replicated volume. For purpose
2, I'm assuming that distributed is the way to go (rather than striped),
although for reliability reasons I'd likely go replicated then
distributed. For storage bricks, I'm looking at something like HP's
1. Yes.
2. Your call - both will work, but as you said, it's a question of in
how many places you want the data to be. :)
2) Is it frowned upon to create 2 volumes out of the same physical set of
disks? I'd like to maximize the spindle count in both volumes
(especially the scratch volume), but will it overly degrade
performance? Would it be better to simply create one replicated and
distributed volume and use that for both of the above purposes?
I don't know about « frowned », but my knee-jerk response would be to
avoid that scenario. That said, it really all comes down to usage
patterns ; if you're only serving data out of one volume at a time, then
there's no problem, but if you're constantly using both...
3) Is it crazy to think of doing a distributed (or NUFA) volume with the
scratch disks in the whole cluster? Especially given that we have
nodes of many ages and see not infrequent node crashes due to bad
memory/HDDs/user code?
Again, « crazy » is a little strong, but again, it might not hurt to
review your usage patterns before diving into the architecture. Who
will access what, in what amounts, and at what speed, when ? Once this
has been established, you can make better informed decisions about where
to put the data, and how to let people access it (in fact, i would
submit that many of your questions will answer themselves :) ).
--
Daniel Maher <dma+gluster AT witbe DOT net>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
