No ideas? It means I should keep to my first plan? Raid6 and single volume?
2016-03-29 11:06 GMT+03:00 Roman <[email protected]>: > 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. > -- Best regards, Roman.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
