<div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
If your images easily fit within the bricks, why do you need sharding in
the first place? It adds an extra layer of complexity & removes the
cool feature of having entire files on each brick, making DR &
things a lot easier.</blockquote></span><br><span class="gmail-">
</span><span class="gmail-"></span>
Because healing with large VM images completes orders of magnitude faster and consumes far less bandwidth/cpu/disk IO<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"></span><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Isn't that only the case with full, non-granular heals? And according to the docs, "full" forces a resync of the entire volume, not just the out-of-sync files. Seems a bit overkill for anything other than a brick replacement...<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">One question - how do you plan to convert the VM's? <br>
<p>- setup a new volume and copy the VM images to that? <br>
</p>
<p>- or change the shard setting inplace? (I don't think that would
work)<br>
</p></blockquote>
AFAIK, if you enable sharding on a volume, it will only apply to new files. An easier option might be to enable sharding & then clone the VMs to create new VHDs.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Doug<br></div></div></div>