On 05/01/2017 02:36 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
2017-05-01 20:30 GMT+02:00 Shyam <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
> Yes, as a matter of fact, you can do this today using the CLI and creating
> nx2 instead of 1x2. 'n' is best decided by you, depending on the growth
> potential of your cluster, as at some point 'n' wont be enough if you grow
> by some nodes.
>
> But, when a brick is replaced we will fail to address "(a) ability to
retain
> replication/availability levels" as we support only homogeneous
replication
> counts across all DHT subvols. (I could be corrected on this when using
> replace-brick though)
Yes, but this is error prone.
Why?
To add to Pranith's question, (and to touch a raw nerve, my apologies)
there is no rebalance in this situation (yet), if you notice.
I do agree that for the duration a brick is replaced its replication
count is down by 1, is that your concern? In which case I do note that
without (a) above, availability is at risk during the operation. Which
needs other strategies/changes to ensure tolerance to errors/faults.
I'm still thinking that saving (I don't know where, I don't know how)
a mapping between
files and bricks would solve many issues and add much more flexibility.
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
