On 01/05/17 11:32, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
Il 05 gen 2017 2:00 PM, "Jeff Darcy" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> ha scritto:
There used to be an idea called "data classification" to cover this
kind of case. You're right that setting arbitrary goals for arbitrary
objects would be too difficult. However, we could have multiple pools
with different replication/EC strategies, then use a translator like
the one for tiering to control which objects go into which pools based
on some kind of policy. To support that with a relatively small
number of nodes/bricks we'd also need to be able to split bricks into
smaller units, but that's not really all that hard
IMHO one of the biggest drawback in gluster is the way it manage bricks
Adding the ability to add one server per time without having to
manually rebalance or similiar would be usefully
Both ceph and lizard manage this automatically.
If you want, you can add a single disk to a working cluster and
automatically the whole cluster is rebalanced transparently with no
user intervention
This is really usefully an much less error prone that having to
manually rebalance all the things
That's still not without it's drawbacks, though I'm sure my instance is
pretty rare. Ceph's automatic migration of data caused a cascading
failure and a complete loss of 580Tb of data due to a hardware bug. If
it had been on gluster, none of it would have been lost.
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
