Is using arbiter unnecessary for me since I have more than 2 servers in the pool anyway?
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:36 PM, Atin Mukherjee <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > -Atin > Sent from one plus one > On 29-Mar-2016 10:43 pm, "Russell Purinton" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I have used the add-brick command in the past but I’m not sure how to go > > about using it to do this… > > > > Could anyone provide an example? > > > > As shown below, the current setup, xs141 is replica with xs138. xs139 is > > replica with xs140. I would like to have 139 serve as arbiter for 141 and > > 138. And I’d like 141 to serve as arbiter for 139 and 140. > > I don't think that's possible. IIRC, the last brick in the replica pair is > considered to be an arbiter brick and I am not aware of any changes in the > behaviour post that. So in short, if you execute add-brick then all the new > bricks will be considered as arbiter IMO. > > Ravi can correct me otherwise. > > > >> On Mar 29, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Atin Mukherjee <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> -Atin > >> Sent from one plus one > >> On 29-Mar-2016 10:21 pm, "Russell Purinton" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > > >> > I have several existing volumes configured in the following way: > >> > > >> > Volume Name: sonic001 > >> > Type: Distributed-Replicate > >> > Volume ID: 362eb3a8-c211-4f35-bcd3-87785c51f15c > >> > Status: Started > >> > Number of Bricks: 4 x 2 = 8 > >> > Transport-type: tcp > >> > Bricks: > >> > Brick1: xs141:/brick1/sonic001p0r0 > >> > Brick2: xs138:/brick1/sonic001p0r1 > >> > Brick3: xs139:/brick1/sonic001p1r0 > >> > Brick4: xs140:/brick1/sonic001p1r1 > >> > Brick5: xs141:/brick0/sonic001p2r0 > >> > Brick6: xs138:/brick0/sonic001p2r1 > >> > Brick7: xs139:/brick0/sonic001p4r0 > >> > Brick8: xs140:/brick0/sonic001p3r1 > >> > > >> > I recently learned that replica 2 can’t be considered HA because of the > >> > split brain scenario that would occur if a network partition occurred. > >> > I also recently learned that using replica 3 arbiter 1 was a way to > >> > solve this problem without consuming additional space. > >> > > >> > Is there a way I can change this existing volume to be replica 3 arbiter > >> > 1, or do I need to create new volumes and rsync the data? > >> > >> I think you should be able to convert the volume topology using add-brick > >> command. > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Russ > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Gluster-users mailing list > >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >> > <http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users> > >> > >> -Atin > >> Sent from one plus one > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
