[Gluster-devel] Glusterd: A New Hope

Vidar Hokstad vidar at hokstad.com
Mon Mar 25 14:53:38 UTC 2013

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm a little surprised by the positive reactions to the "Gluster on
> Gluster" approach.  Even though Kaleb and I considered it for HekaFS,
> it's still a bit of a hack.  In particular, we'd still have to solve the
> problems of keeping that private instance available, restarting daemons
> and initiating repair etc. - exactly the problems it's supposed to be
> solving for the rest of the system.

For my part the reason I like it because it seems conceptually "pure" and
all the other solutions still need to be bootstrapped somehow anyway, and I
know how getting the Gluster setup works. Though I'm aware that it might be
more complicated than it's worth even if it might seem clean from the
outside. You've undoubtably thought a lot more about the problems with it
than I have...

In any case, if the bootstrapping of this is all hidden behind just an
extra option on "peer probe" for example, then it doesn't make all that
much of a difference if that triggers bootstrapping a Gluster configuration
volume or Doozer or something else entirely as long as the chosen option
doesn't make day to day troubleshooting and maintenance much harder...

If we just do something like "first three servers to be configured become
> configuration servers" then we run a very high risk of choosing exactly
> those servers that are most likely to fail together.  :(  As long as the
> extra configuration is limited to one option on "peer probe" is it
> really a problem?

I think perhaps I'm looking at it from the specific point of view of a user
that will generally have fairly small volumes. When you have volumes with
(say) no more than 5-6 nodes in most cases, it'd be more painful to now
also have to worry about whether that failed node is one of the
configuration nodes and have to create a new one. It's one more thing that
can go wrong. For a large deployment I agree you _need_ to know those kind
of things, but for a small one I'd be inclined to just make every node hold
the configuration data.

As long as there's no hard limits that prevents us from just adding the "as
master" on "peer probe" of all nodes for small clusters (other than perhaps
performance tradeoffs etc. if the number grows too large), then that'd be
fine, I think. I can avoid the complexity of paying attention to which ones
are "special", and people with larger clusters can still control it in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20130325/25a7378d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list