[Gluster-devel] clustered afr
Krishna Srinivas
krishna at zresearch.com
Mon Mar 12 18:26:52 UTC 2007
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
>
More information about the Gluster-devel
mailing list