On 24 August 2015 at 01:11, Christian Rice <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > Well, slave *can* be of sma esize as master (useable space). There is no need for slave to me *more* size than master. But if you expand your master volume, make sure to expand slave volume as well. //MS > > > From: M S Vishwanath Bhat <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:59 AM > To: Christian Rice <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[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]> 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] >> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
