[Gluster-devel] Client side afr versus server side, doing a self-heal
Krishna Srinivas
krishna at zresearch.com
Thu May 1 17:39:30 UTC 2008
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Amar S. Tumballi <amar at zresearch.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Brandon Lamb <brandonlamb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Basically yea. So with server side afr server1 would send a copy to
> > server2.
> >
> > With client side, client1 copies from server1 to itself, then copies
> > from itself to server2, correct?
> >
> >
> You have made a very good point. Generally when we setup a storage, or
> recommend it, we consider a fresh setup. We recommend client side afr (or
> any other clustering translators) because it got its own benefits like, open
> fds will remain intact even if the subvolume goes down.
>
> In the scenario like you described, I would say, server side afr helps a
> lot. But if I am setting up GlusterFS, I will rather use rsync or scp to
> copy the data to server2 from server1 directly, and then start afr on client
> node. I know GlusterFS should work fine for healing even that, but
> considering opening each file to heal it through GlusterFS, its the same or
> less effort to start with symmetric export points.
>
> Krishna,
> How does it handle two files without any attributes but have same data?
An attribute-less file is treated as a file with version 1. So using rsync/scp
will work fine.
Krishna
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
>
>
> --
> Amar Tumballi
> Gluster/GlusterFS Hacker
> [bulde on #gluster/irc.gnu.org]
> http://www.zresearch.com - Commoditizing Super Storage!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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