[Gluster-users] stripe 2 replica 2 VS disperse 4 redundancy 2

[Ravishankar N]

On 06/17/2016 03:05 AM, Manuel Padrón Martínez wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I have a big doubt.
> I have 2 servers with 2 disks of 2 TB each. I've been thinking to create a volume with stripe 2 replica 2 creating a brick with each disk and using server1:/b1 server2:/b1 server1:/b2 server2:/b2.
Striping is not actively developed. Sharding [1] is the successor to it.
> This seems to work fine 4TB of space and if one disk or even one server fails the volume is still there. But I just found disperse volumes, I understand that disperse 4 redundancy 2 work in the same way.
>
> Any suggestion on which solution is better?
It depends on your workload really.
>   which one is faster?
Replica volumes are faster than disperse because there is no erasure 
code math to be done during I/O but  as is obvious, you'd get less 
volume space than disperse.
> which one you'll recommend?
For  high I/O rate workloads, replica could be a better choice. You 
should try both and see what works best for you.
Btw, you need 6 bricks for a 4+2 disperse configuration.

-Ravi

[1] http://blog.gluster.org/2015/12/introducing-shard-translator/

>
> Thanks from Canary Islands
>
> Manuel Padrón Martínez
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users