[Gluster-users] Gluster considerations - replicated volumes in different sites

[Mathieu Chateau]

Hello,

I suggest Tom to clarify if he intends geo-rep or replica.

Tom, do you expect automatic failover to remote site if local is down ?


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

2015-11-23 14:37 GMT+01:00 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle at redhat.com>:

> On 11/23/2015 03:26 AM, Tom Farrar wrote:
> > Good Morning All,
> >
> > I'm looking at deploying 3 Gluster nodes, two in one location and the
> > third in another. The link between these two locations is fast and
> > fairly low latency, around ~4ms. The volumes are all low write/high read
> > with the largest being a few TBs (with lots of small files). While the
> > primary location will have two nodes in, the secondary location (with
> > one node) will see local reads and writes.
> >
> > I'm a little concerned about running the replication in separate
> > locations given that from what I've read Gluster doesn't like latency.
> > Is this a valid concern? I've seen a few options for what I believe is
> > keeping reads local so they don't go to the distant node, but I'm
> > struggling to find a definitive answer (cluster.read-subvolumeperhaps).
>
> For reads, the clients will read from the server that responds the
> fastest to the Lookup call. Usually that will be from the closest,
> lowest latency, server. That's automatic, there is no configuration
> required for that.
>
> Aside from that, using geo-rep to replicate to the remote system is
> probably a good fit for your use case; clients only know about the
> closest systems and never incur the hit for the synchronous write to the
> remote system.
>
> --
>
> Kaleb
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20151123/4e671170/attachment.html>