It would be interesting if it could read in a round-robin manner from where it contains the data. Eventually if the local storage is too busy (and therefore providing higher latency times) it would be good to read some of the data from another quiet node which, even over the network, could provide better latency times. In short distribute the IO load across the whole cluster if it contains multiple copies of the data. What's other's opinions on that ?
Regards, Fernando -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 June 2012 11:55 To: Fernando Frediani (Qube); 'Nicolas Sebrecht'; 'Thomas Jackson' Cc: 'gluster-users' Subject: RE: [Gluster-users] about HA infrastructure for hypervisors Assuming that we use a 3 copy approach across the hypervisors, does Gluster favour the local copy on the hypervisor if the data is on distributed/replicated ? It would be good to avoid the network hop when the data is on the local disk. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:gluster-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani (Qube) > Sent: 28 June 2012 11:43 > To: 'Nicolas Sebrecht'; 'Thomas Jackson' > Cc: 'gluster-users' > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] about HA infrastructure for hypervisors > > You should indeed to use the same server running as a storage brick as a > KVM host to maximize hardware and power usage. Only thing I am not sure > is if you can limit the amount of host memory Gluster can eat so most of it > gets reserved for the Virtual Machines. > > Fernando > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:gluster-users- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Nicolas Sebrecht > Sent: 28 June 2012 10:31 > To: Thomas Jackson > Cc: 'gluster-users' > Subject: [Gluster-users] Re: about HA infrastructure for hypervisors > > The 28/06/12, Thomas Jackson wrote: > > > Why don't you have KVM running on the Gluster bricks as well? > > Good point. While abtracting we decided to seperate KVM & Gluster but I > can't remember why. > We'll think about that again. > > > We have a 4 node cluster (each with 4x 300GB 15k SAS drives in > > RAID10), 10 gigabit SFP+ Ethernet (with redundant switching). Each > > node participates in a distribute+replicate Gluster namespace and runs > > KVM. We found this to be the most efficient (and fastest) way to run the > cluster. > > > > This works well for us, although (due to Gluster using fuse) it isn't > > as fast as we would like. Currently waiting for the KVM driver that > > has been discussed a few times recently, that should make a huge > > difference to the performance for us. > > Ok! Thanks. > > -- > Nicolas Sebrecht > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
