According to this: http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-November/019443.html it is not that easly possible.
2016-03-29 0:58 GMT+03:00 Roman <[email protected]>: > and another pretty important thing - will I be able to grow this volume by > simpli adding few bricks more? Or how is it going to go with expansion? > > 2016-03-28 14:49 GMT+03:00 Roman <[email protected]>: > >> have anyone had any disaster recovery actions on such setup? >> For how long it could take to heal the volume in case of disk failure? >> and count in this setup means, how many bricks will be counted as bricks >> for meta-data ? >> Just need some more information on this kind of setup, seems like I like >> it :) >> >> 2016-03-28 14:21 GMT+03:00 Roman <[email protected]>: >> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> thanks for an answer. but in the case of 37 8TB bricks the data won't be >>> available if one of servers fails anyway :) And it seems to me, that it >>> would be even bigger mess to undarstand, what files are up and what are >>> down with bricks.. Or am I missing something? Reading this one >>> https://gluster.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Setting%20Up%20Volumes/#creating-dispersed-volumes >>> And what would be the redundancy count in case of 37 8TB bricks? still 1? >>> >>> 2016-03-28 11:53 GMT+03:00 Joe Julian <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> You're "wasting" the same amount of space either way. Make 37 8TB >>>> bricks and use disperse. >>>> >>>> >>>> On March 28, 2016 10:33:52 AM GMT+02:00, Roman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for an option, but it seems that it is not that good in our >>>>> situation. I can't waste storage space on bricks for disperse and disperse >>>>> volumes require having bricks of the same size. We will start with >>>>> distributed volume of uneven size at the beginning. As we are speaking of >>>>> archive server, it is not that critical, if some portion of data won't be >>>>> available for some time (maintenance time). Having like 22 disks per >>>>> server >>>>> makes the proability of raid5 failure,when 2 or more disks will fail a bit >>>>> higher though, so I'll really have to decide something about it :) >>>>> >>>>> 2016-03-28 1:35 GMT+03:00 Russell Purinton <[email protected] >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>>> You might get better results if you forget about using RAID all >>>>>> together >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, GlusterFS supports “disperse” volumes which act like >>>>>> RAID5/6. It has the advantage that you can maintain access to things even >>>>>> if a whole server goes down. If you are using local RAID for redundancy >>>>>> and >>>>>> that server goes offline you’ll be missing files. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 27, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Roman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Need an advice from heavy glusterfs users and may be devs.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Going to give a try for glusterfs in new direction for me. All the >>>>>> time I was using GlusterFS as VM storage for KVM guests. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now going to use it as a main distributed storage archive for >>>>>> digitalized (scanned) books in one of libraries in Estonia. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the very start we are going to scan about 346 GB - 495 GB daily, >>>>>> which is about 7000 - 10 000 pages. 600 GB in the future. There are some >>>>>> smaller files per book: a small xml file and compressed pdf (while all >>>>>> the >>>>>> original files will be tiff). This data goes to production server and >>>>>> then >>>>>> we are going to archive it on our new glusterfs archive. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this moment, we've got 2 servers: >>>>>> >>>>>> one with 22x8TB 5400 RPM SATA HDD disks >>>>>> second with 15x8TB 5400 RPM SATA HDD disks >>>>>> We are planning to add remaining disks to the second server at the >>>>>> end of the year, being budget based institue is crap, I know. So it >>>>>> should >>>>>> be as easy as extend LVM volume and remount it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both the servers will run raid5 or raid6, haven't decided yet, but as >>>>>> we need as much storage space as possibe per server, seems like it will >>>>>> be >>>>>> raid5. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this moment I'm planing to create just a single distributed >>>>>> storage over these two servers and mount them on the production server, >>>>>> so >>>>>> it could archive files there. So it would be like 168+112 = 280 TB >>>>>> storage >>>>>> pool. We are planing to extend this one anually, by adding HDDs to second >>>>>> server at the end of first year and then adding some storage by extending >>>>>> the ammount of servers, wich means, just adding the bricks to the >>>>>> distributed storage massive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any better solutions or possibilities ? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Roman. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gluster-users mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Roman. >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Gluster-users mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Roman. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Roman. >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Roman. > -- Best regards, Roman.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
