[Gluster-users] how well will this work

[William Muriithi]

Joe,
> I have 3 servers with replica 3 volumes, 4 bricks per server on lvm
> partitions that are placed on each of 4 hard drives, 15 volumes
> resulting in 60 bricks per server. One of my servers is also a kvm host
> running (only) 24 vms.
>

Mind explaining your setup again.  I kind of could not follow,
probably because of terminology issues.  For example

 4 bricks per server  - Don't understand this part, I assumes a brick
== 1 physical server (Okay, could also be one vm, but don't see how
that would be help unless its a test environment).  The way you put it
though, mean I have issues with my terminology.

Isn't there a 1:1 relationship between brick and server?

> Each vm image is only 6 gig, enough for the operating system and
> applications and is hosted on one volume. The data for each application
> is hosted on its own GlusterFS volume.
Hmm, petty good idea, especially security wise.  Means one VM can not
mess with another vm files.  Is it possible to extend gluster volume
without destroying and recreating it with bigger peer storage setting
>
> For mysql, I set up my innodb store to use 4 files (I don't do 1 file
> per table), each file distributes to each of the 4 replica subvolumes.
> This balances the load pretty nicely.

I thought lots of small files would be better than 4 huge files?  I
mean, why does this work out better performance wise?  Not saying its
wrong, I am just trying to learn from you as I am looking for a
similar setup. However, I could not think why using 4 files would be
better but this may because I don't understand how glusterfs works may
be
>
> I don't really do anything special for anything else, other than the php
> app recommendations I make on my blog (http://joejulian.name) which all
> have nothing to do with the actual filesystem.
>
Thanks for the link
> The thing that I think some people (even John Mark) miss apply is that
> this is just a tool. You have to engineer a solution using the tools you
> have available. If you feel the positives that GlusterFS provides
> outweigh the negatives, then you will simply have to engineer a solution
> that suits your end goal using this tool. It's not a question of whether
> it works, it's whether you can make it work for your use case.
>
> On 12/27/2012 03:00 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Ok... now that's diametrically the opposite response from Dan Cyr's of
>> a few minutes ago.
William