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

[Manuel Padrón Martínez]

Thank you both.  I didn't know about shard translator, I'll take a look.

Thanks for the help and to correct my missunderstanding. 

Regards

Manuel Padrón Martínez

----- Mensaje original -----
De: "Xavier Hernandez" <xhernandez at datalab.es>
Para: "Manuel Padrón Martínez" <manolopm at graph-ic.org>, "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org>
Enviados: Viernes, 17 de Junio 2016 11:27:05
Asunto: Re: [Gluster-users] stripe 2 replica 2 VS disperse 4 redundancy 2

Hola Manuel,

as Ravishankar has said, you should use sharding instead of stripe.

Regarding the disperse, the minimum number of servers you would need is 
3. Disperse requires at least 3 bricks to create a configuration with 
redundancy 1 (this is equivalent to a replica 2 in terms of redundancy), 
but if you put 2 of those bricks in a single server and that server 
dies, you will lose 2 bricks from a volume that only tolerates 1 brick 
failure.

You can have 2 or more bricks per server and create a 
distributed-disperse setup.

The "disperse 4" means that each disperse-set is made of 4 bricks. 
"redundancy 2" means that two of those bricks will be redundant (i.e. it 
will work fine with 2 bricks down). However disperse doesn't allow 
redundancies greater or equal to "number of bricks" / 2.

With redundancy 2, the minimum number of bricks/servers should be 5.

For better performance in most cases, it's recommended to have a 
configuration where "number of bricks" - "redundancy bricks" is a power 
of 2 (i.e. 2, 4, 8 or 16).

Currently, replica is a bit faster than disperse, however with disperse 
you waste less physical storage for the same usable space.

If you have enough servers, you should try it and see if the performance 
is good enough for your workload.

Xavi

On 16/06/16 23:35, 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.
> 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? which one is faster? which one you'll recommend?
>
> Thanks from Canary Islands
>
> Manuel Padrón Martínez
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>