[Gluster-users] Need help making a decision choosing MS DFS or Gluster+SAMBA+CTDB

[Mathieu Chateau]

Hello,

what do you mean by "true" clustering ?
We can do a Windows Failover cluster (1 virtual ip, 1 virtual name), but
this mean using a shared storage like SAN.

Then it depends on your network topology. If you have multiple geographical
sites / datacenter, then DFS-R behave a lot better than Gluster in
replicated mode. Users won't notice any latency,
At the price that replication is async.


Cordialement,
Mathieu CHATEAU
http://www.lotp.fr

2015-08-10 7:26 GMT+02:00 Ira Cooper <ira at redhat.com>:

> Mathieu Chateau <mathieu.chateau at lotp.fr> writes:
>
> > I do have DFS-R in production, that replaced sometimes netapp ones.
> > But no similar workload as my current GFS.
> >
> > In active/active, the most common issue is file changed on both side (no
> > global lock)
> > Will users access same content from linux & windows ?
>
> If you want to go active/active.  I'd recommend Samba + CTDB + Gluster.
>
> You want true clustering, and a system that can handle the locking etc.
>
> I'd layer normal DFS to do "namespace" control, and to help with
> handling failover, or just use round robin DNS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ira
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20150810/fc17a8cf/attachment.html>