<html><head></head><body><div>I think the replica 2 arbiter 1 is more clear towards the intent of the configuration.</div><div><br></div><div>I would also support :</div><div><br></div><div>replica n <brick 1>,<brick 2>,...,<brick n> arbiter m <brick 1>,<brick 2>,...<brick m></div><div><br></div><div>as that makes it very clear what brick(s) should be the arbiter(s).</div><div><br></div><div>On Wed, 2017-12-20 at 15:44 +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><pre>Hi,
The existing syntax in the gluster CLI for creating arbiter volumes is
`gluster volume create <volname> replica 3 arbiter 1 <list of bricks>` .
It means (or at least intended to mean) that out of the 3 bricks, 1
brick is the arbiter.
There has been some feedback while implementing arbiter support in
glusterd2 for glusterfs-4.0 that we should change this to `replica 2
arbiter 1` , meaning that there are 2 replica (data) bricks and the 3rd
one is the arbiter (which only holds meta data).
See [1] for some discussions. What does everyone feel is more user
friendly and intuitive?
Thanks,
Ravi
[1] <a href="https://github.com/gluster/glusterd2/pull/480">https://github.com/gluster/glusterd2/pull/480</a>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users">http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a>
</pre></blockquote><div><span><pre><pre>-- <br></pre>James P. Kinney III
Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you
gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his
own tail. It won't fatten the dog.
- Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain
http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
</pre></span></div></body></html>