[Gluster-devel] clustered afr

[Krishna Srinivas]

Hi Tibor,

It is behaving the way it is expected to.

Your requirement is you have 3 nodes, you want 2 copies of every file
and if one node goes down, all files should still be available.

It can be achieved through a config similar to what is explained here:
http://www.gluster.org/docs/index.php/GlusterFS_User_Guide#AFR_Example_in_Clustered_Mode

Regards
Krishna

On 3/12/07, Tibor Veres <tibor.veres at gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm trying to build a 3-node storage cluster which should be able to
> withstand 1 node going down.
> first I tried glusterfs 1.3.0-pre2.2, but had some memory leakage
> which seems to be fixed in the source checked from the repository
>
> i'm exporting 3 bricks with this configs like this:
> volume brick[1-3]
>   type storage/posix
>   option directory /mnt/export/shared/[1-3]
> end-volume
> volume server
>   type protocol/server
>   option transport-type tcp/server     # For TCP/IP transport
>  option listen-port 699[6-8]              # Default is 6996
>   subvolumes brick[1-3]
>   option auth.ip.brick[1-3].allow * # Allow access to "brick" volume
> end-volume
>
> my client config looks like this:
> volume b[1-3]
>   type protocol/client
>   option transport-type tcp/client     # for TCP/IP transport
>   option remote-host 127.0.0.1         # IP address of the remote brick
>  option remote-port 699[6-8]              # default server port is 6996
>   option remote-subvolume brick[1-3]        # name of the remote volume
> end-volume
> volume afr
>     type cluster/afr
>     subvolumes b1 b2 b3
>     option replicate *:2
>     option scheduler rr
>     option rr.limits.min-free-disk 512MB
>     option rr.refresh-interval 10
> end-volume
>
> i didnt activate any performance-enhance translators.
>
> This setup sort of works, except that i saw files created only on
> bricks1 and 2, brick3 got only the directories and symlinks created on
> it. After killing the brick2 glusterfsd, the filesystem stayed up,
> which is promising, but still no files are created on brick3.
>
> is this setup supposed to work? can i get comparable functionality set
> up with current glusterfs? preferably in a way that can be extended to
> 5 nodes, withstanding 2 going down. is there any plan for some
> raid6-like functionality, or this would kill performance alltogether?
>
>
> --
> Tibor Veres
>   tibor.veres at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>