It would probably be better to ask this with end-goal questions instead
of with a unspecified "critical feature" list and "performance problems".
6 months ago, for myself and quite an extensive (and often impressive)
list of users there were no missing critical features nor was there any
problems with performance. That's not to say that they did not meet your
design specifications, but without those specs you're the only one who
could evaluate that.
On 12/26/2012 08:24 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hi Folks,
I find myself trying to expand a 2-node high-availability cluster from
to a 4-node cluster. I'm running Xen virtualization, and currently
using DRBD to mirror data, and pacemaker to failover cleanly.
The thing is, I'm trying to add 2 nodes to the cluster, and DRBD
doesn't scale. Also, as a function of rackspace limits, and the
hardware at hand, I can't separate storage nodes from compute nodes -
instead, I have to live with 4 nodes, each with 4 large drives (but
also w/ 4 gigE ports per server).
The obvious thought is to use Gluster to assemble all the drives into
one large storage pool, with replication. But.. last time I looked at
this (6 months or so back), it looked like some of the critical
features were brand new, and performance seemed to be a problem in the
configuration I'm thinking of.
Which leads me to my question: Has the situation improved to the
point that I can use Gluster this way?
Thanks very much,
Miles Fidelman
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
