I don't have time to write up a long answer right now (work's killing me
today) but if you search for lvm on the IRC log, we had a bit of a
discussion about that a few days (or was it a week... they're all
blending together) ago.
On 01/10/2013 03:06 PM, Gaurav P wrote:
*bump*
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Gaurav P
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
I've been reading up on GlusterFS and I'm looking for best
practices around using multiple disks as bricks in servers that
will be part of a replicated volume.
Say I start with a single disk each in two servers (/dev/sda1
mounted at /a)
gluster volume create test-volume replica 2 transport tcp server1:/a
server2:/a
Then I add a second disk in each server (/dev/sdb1 mounted at /b)
gluster volume add-brick test-volume replica 2 transport tcp server1:/b
server2:/b
With this (after rebalancing), am I correct in understanding that
I will have a distributed replicated volume with GlusterFS
providing the equivalent of RAID1+0 for data on my volume.
Now as I understand, I will be restricted to adding disks (bricks)
of the same size whenever I need to extend the volume. What are
the pros/cons of instead using LVM to provide a single LV on each
server and extending the LV and filesystem each time I add
additional storage? The other benefit to LVM being the ability to
take snapshots. The one downside I foresee is that a concatenated
LV will not use the second PV (disk) till the first PV is full,
though I could perhaps stripe?
More questions to follow, but I'm trying to think through this
before I get started with my first deployment.
TIA
Gaurav
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
