Thanks so much for the response. I want to be sure I understand your caveat about slave volume being larger—that is not intuitive. I’d think the slave volume could be the same size, that is, same useable space as seen by a fuse client. Where does a larger slave volume size requirement come from, if I may ask?
From: M S Vishwanath Bhat <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:59 AM To: Christian Rice <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] geo-replication master is distributed-replicated, slave is distributed only? On 21 August 2015 at 23:46, Christian Rice <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I’d like to have a distributed-replicated master volume, and distributed-only slave. Can this be done? Just beginning the research, but so far I’ve only done geo-replication with distributed-only volumes. Tips/caveats on this kind architecture are welcome. Yes, This can be done. Both master and slave can be of different configurations. But make sure that your slave volume has more effective size available than the master volume. HTH //MS The rationale is straightforward—the master volume should be able to stay available with all data when suffering a node loss, but the geo-replicated volumes can be taken offline for repairs and resync as soon as possible. Cheers, Christian _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
