Hi Guys, Sorry I was busy with setting up those 2 machines for GlusterFS So my machines now have 32 GB memory 7 TB RAID 10 Storage 94 TB Raid 6 Storage
I have setup the initials bricks and cluster is formed and working well. Although I haven't checked from client side. I just wanted to ask what should be the idle size of the brick, for now I have made the entire 7TB volume as one brick, is that ok? Is there a best practice for brick size? @ Pranith: Yes for now I want to test this system. @Mathieu : Even I think it will be perform better with RAID 10 for read write intensive workloads. Cheers, Dev On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Mathieu Chateau <[email protected]> wrote: > RAID 10 provide best performance (much better than raid 6) > > Cordialement, > Mathieu CHATEAU > http://www.lotp.fr > > 2016-01-13 5:35 GMT+01:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected]>: > >> +gluster-users >> >> On 01/13/2016 09:44 AM, Pawan Devaiah wrote: >> >> We would be looking for redundancy so replicated volumes I guess >> >> If replication is going to be there, why additional RAID10? You can do >> just RAID6, it saves on space and replication in glusterfs will give >> redundancy anyways. >> >> Pranith >> >> >> Thanks, >> Dev >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 01/13/2016 02:21 AM, Pawan Devaiah wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the response Pranith >>> >>> If we take EC out of the equation and say I go with RAID on the physical >>> disk, do you think GlusterFS is good for the 2 workloads that I mentioned >>> before. >>> >>> Basically it is going to be a NFS storage for VM and data but with >>> different RAIDs, 10 for VM and 6 for data. >>> >>> What will be the kind of volume you will be using with these disks? >>> >>> Pranith >>> >>> Thanks >>> Dev >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/12/2016 01:26 PM, Pawan Devaiah wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response Pranith and Mathieu, >>>> >>>> Pranith: To answer your question, I am planning to use this storage for >>>> two main workloads. >>>> >>>> 1. As a shared storage for VMs. >>>> >>>> EC as it is today is not good for this. >>>> >>>> 2. As a NFS Storage for files. >>>> >>>> If the above is for storing archive data. EC is nice here. >>>> >>>> Pranith >>>> >>>> >>>> We are a online backup company so we store few hundred Terra bytes of >>>> data. >>>> >>>> >>>> Mathieu: I appreciate your concern, however as a system admins >>>> sometimes we get paranoid and try to control everything under the Sun. >>>> I know I can only control what I can. >>>> >>>> Having said that, No, I have pair of servers to start with so at the >>>> moment I am just evaluating and preparing for proof of concept, after which >>>> I am going to propose to my management, if they are happy then we will >>>> proceed further. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dev >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Mathieu Chateau < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> For any system, 36 disks raise disk failure probability. Do you plan >>>>> GlusterFS with only one server? >>>>> >>>>> You should think about failure at each level and be prepared for it: >>>>> >>>>> - Motherboard failure (full server down) >>>>> - Disks failure >>>>> - Network cable failure >>>>> - File system corruption (time needed for fsck) >>>>> - File/folder removed by mistake (backup) >>>>> >>>>> Using or not raid depend on your answer on these questions and >>>>> performance needed. >>>>> It also depend how "good" is raid controller in your server, like if >>>>> it has battery and 1GB of cache. >>>>> >>>>> When many disks are bought at same time (1 order, serial number close >>>>> to each other), they may fail in near time to each other (if something bad >>>>> happened in manufactory). >>>>> I already saw like 3 disks failing in few days. >>>>> >>>>> just my 2 cents, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cordialement, >>>>> Mathieu CHATEAU >>>>> http://www.lotp.fr >>>>> >>>>> 2016-01-12 4:36 GMT+01:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected] >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 01/12/2016 04:34 AM, Pawan Devaiah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a fairly powerful server sitting at office with 128 Gig RAM >>>>>> and 36 X 4 TB drives. I am planning to utilize this server as a backend >>>>>> storage with GlusterFS on it. >>>>>> I have been doing lot of reading on Glusterfs, but I do not see any >>>>>> definite recommendation on having RAID on GLUSTER nodes. >>>>>> Is it recommended to have RAID on GLUSTER nodes specially for the >>>>>> bricks? >>>>>> If Yes, is it not contrary to the latest Erasure code implemented in >>>>>> Gluster or is it still not ready for production environment? >>>>>> I am happy to implement RAID but my two main concern are >>>>>> 1. I want to make most of the disk space available. >>>>>> 2. I am also concerned about the rebuild time after disk failure on >>>>>> the RAID. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the workload you have? >>>>>> >>>>>> We found in our testing that random read/write workload with Erasure >>>>>> coded volumes is not as good as we get with replication. There are >>>>>> enhancements in progress at the moment to address these things which we >>>>>> are >>>>>> yet to merge and re-test. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pranith >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gluster-users mailing >>>>>> [email protected]http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
