[Gluster-users] Feedback and Questions on afr+unify
prabhu at aero.iitb.ac.in
Thu Dec 18 12:04:54 UTC 2008
Thanks for the response.
Krishna Srinivas wrote:
>> - This one is very minor. It wasn't explicitly clear from the docs that to
>> use unify one needed (a) locking and (b) the namespace. The place this is
>> mentioned is in "Understanding unify translator" which isn't the first place
>> a user would look. Would be nice if this were mentioned somewhere.
> Unify needs namespace, what do you mean by "locking" here?
The fact that I need to turn the posix-locks feature on.
option mandatory on # enables mandatory locking on all files
Without it I was running into problems.
>> - There are a lot of options to choose from and without Anands initial help
>> in person I would be lost trying to choose a scheduler. It would be great
>> if there were some recommended solutions. I understand the software is
>> rapidly growing but this would make life easier for new adopters.
> True. We will give "cookbook" recommended setups in our documentation.
That would be great!
>> 2008-12-18 00:25:40 E [addr.c:117:gf_auth] auth/addr: client is bound to
>> port 59327 which is not privilaged
>> 2008-12-18 00:25:40 E [authenticate.c:193:gf_authenticate] auth: no
>> authentication module is interested in accepting remote-client
>> 2008-12-18 00:25:40 E [server-protocol.c:6842:mop_setvolume] server: Cannot
>> authenticate client from 10.24.1.4:59327
>> I worked around this problem by exposing the machine as a DMZ host from the
>> router but this is not ideal. Is there something I can do to fix this?
> You can use "login" based authentication to get around this problem.
Thanks, yes, that would work but for some reason I feel a
username/password is weaker than restricting it to an IP.
>> - What would happen if I change the scheduler to something else? Would that
>> hose the data? I haven't moved all my data yet so I can experiment
>> currently. I am not likely to tinker with the setup later on though since
>> this will contain important data.
> Changing schedulers will not cause any problem.
Interesting, so any existing data on the disks will not be affected?
How does that work? Does this mean I can fill the disks a-priori before
>> - What would happen if I added another brick, say another disk to the
>> existing set on one of the machines? Would it break the round-robin
>> scheduler that I am using? I see from the FAQ that this should work with
>> the alu but will it work with rr?
> ALU will be useful when you add servers later. i.e it will see free
> diskspace and schedule creation of new files there. RR will just
> You can experiement with the new "DHT" translator in place of unify.
OK, I can do that, I see dht does not need the extra namespace disk, so
I guess I can clear out that directory.
> You can go with a more standard setup of
> unify->afr->client instead of afr->unify->client
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by the above, the arrow directions
aren't completely clear to me. My understanding of the setup currently
is that I have unify->afr->client (I unify 4 partitions on one machine,
afr them across machines and then mount that as a client) which is what
you have mentioned too above. I am confused now that you mention that I
have afr->unify->client instead.
> When you have afr over unify and one of unify subvol goes down, afr's
> selfheal will create missing files which you don't want to happen.
OK, so you are saying I need to simply switch to using dht, remove the
namespace directory and continue with the setup and this problem will
More information about the Gluster-users