[Gluster-users] Difference in transltors and a question about live heal
krishna at zresearch.com
Mon Feb 23 07:17:27 UTC 2009
2009/2/23 William Hanwoody <hanwoody at gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Jeffry Molanus
>> <jeffry.molanus at gmail.com>wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 21:34 +0530, Basavanagowda Kanur wrote:
>> > > Davide,
>> > > Replies inline.
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Davide D'Amico
>> > > <davide.damico at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > > I was looking for a scalable-ha nfs storage solution and
>> > > glusterfs seems to be
>> > > the only out there :-)
>> > >
>> > > I was reading the documentation and I cannot find the
>> > > difference
>> > > between "Replicate
>> > > Translator" and "HA Translator": the latest seems to be a
>> > > particular case of the
>> > > first one when I have only two bricks. Is it right?
>> > > Replicate translator provides replication feature, whereas HA (High
>> > > Availability) translator provides high availability, HA does not do
>> > > any replication.
>> > Care to explain how it does work then? How can a file be HA if the
>> > server that went down is not replicated?
>> HA is useful when you have multiple network interconnect to the server and
>> you want glusterfs to continue working seemlessly, then you would use HA.
>> HA fails over to secondary interconnect, if primary fails.
> I think the name of "HA" is mismatch. For replication is also "HA" when one of
> storage node went down.
Correct. We will be renaming HA as "multipath", AFR is already renamed
For now its not a "rename" but "a.k.a".
More information about the Gluster-users