[Gluster-users] Small files performance

[Gmail]

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Il 01 giu 2016 22:34, "Gmail" <b.s.mikhael at gmail.com <mailto:b.s.mikhael at gmail.com>> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com <mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> with nfs replication is made directly by gluster servers with no client involved?
> >
> > correct
> 
> This is good
> what i really don't like in gluster is the client doing all the replication.
> replication and cluster management should be done directly by servers, not by clients
> client side the resources used for replication and cluster management could be used for something else like virtualizations and so on.
> 
> > the NFS client talks to only one NFS server (the one which it mounts), the NFS HA setup is only to failover a virtual IP to another healthy node. so the NFS client will just do 3 minor timeouts then it will do a major timeout, when that happens, the virtual IP failover will be already done.
> 
> The same is for native client.
> even the native client has to wait for a timeout before changing the storage node, right?
> 
no, there is no timeout with the client, the client knows how to talk to all the nodes at the same time, so if a node goes down, not a big deal, it still can reach out to the others
> what happens to a virtual machine writing to disk during this timeout? 
If two out of three storage nodes acknowledged the writes (in case of replica 3), it will be ok, the node failure will not affect the write performance, but when two nodes goes down, the third node with turn RO, as there is no quorum.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160601/72e23db5/attachment.html>