[Gluster-devel] Why I would rather have server side AFR
Krishna Srinivas
krishna at zresearch.com
Fri May 2 06:03:42 UTC 2008
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Brandon Lamb <brandonlamb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Faster interconnect hardware costs lots of $$$. Wouldnt there be less
> servers in most cases, meaning less hardware to buy?
>
> I just took a look at infiniband hardware, its expensive. If I wanted
> to upgrade my network, I would much rather upgrade my server machines
> at 2-4 computer instead of 10 mail servers, 4 web servers AND 2-4
> server machines.
>
> Although you still have that problem of server2 going down and having
> a client connected to it directly. But I guess couldnt you use LVS or
> something to failover to the other servers that are up?
>
> What other cons are there to server side afr am I missing (other than
> the whole cluster doesnt work if one server goes down)?
This problem you faced should have worked, I have asked you for clues
from the logs in other thread.
>
> If using server side afr, and a client does a write, is this faster
> when it only has to send the write to one server, or does it still
> have to wait for the server to replicate to the other servers and
> reply back that the write was successful on all servers? That might be
> worded strangely...
Correct, server will write to other servers before returning the call.
You could use write-behind for it, you could also use it on the client
side. A clear performance measure comparing both the setup
will give an idea on which is better.
Krishna
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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