[Gluster-devel] Why I would rather have server side AFR

[Krishna Srinivas]

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
>