On 02/14/2012 01:25 PM, John Mark Walker wrote:
----- Original Message -----
I'm currently fighting to get GlusterFS replica in an HPC environment
but the "wasting half the space" argument is hard to fight when
there's
a tight budget. There really is no waste at all, the space is being
used for full server redundancy (IMHO you need server redundancy, not
just disk redundancy) and in some use-cases, increased performance
(in
other use-cases replica is slower).
I think this gets to the heart of the matter. This is very much on our minds as
we look at future roadmaps.
For now, replica 2 + RAID underneath is a valid solution for the vast majority
of use cases.
True, but it seems like at some point the cost of N+N just looks silly
(think if you need 2,000 servers to get the usable space of 1,000 of them).
There shouldn't be many cases where replica 3 is absolutely necessary - not
when you utilize a decent RAID card.
To pose the issue in a slightly different light, what would you want future
behavior to be? Is erasure coding something that you view as essential in the
near future?
-JM
By "erasure coding" I assume you mean "some RAID 5/6-like data recovery
with parity". I think this should be something to investigate and see
if it is plausible to build. At the very least it opens GlusterFS to
more use-cases and more design choices.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
