[Gluster-users] Glusterfs over wan?

[m.roth at 5-cent.us]

> Excuse me, can you say me how I answer to a thread on the maillist ? ..
> I think that normally I musn't reply to the mail that I received..
>
ARGH!!! I *hate* the configuration of this list - I intended it to be
posted that way. You have to either hit <reply all>, or cut and paste the
list address in, where *none* of the mailing lists I've been on for 10-15
years are that way - reply is to the list.

> First, thank you for your answer..
>
> And then, imagine this scenario..
>
> We have just two gluster serveur with a replicated volume betweem those
> server..> The connexion between the two site (geographically sepate) is
one fiber
> connection (1gb symetric)
>
> What do you think..? A gluster implementation is now possible with this
> conditions ?

How many km apart? And again, do the test I suggested: ping on your LAN,
then ping on your WAN, and see the difference.

        mark
>
> Thanks a lot for the time you take for me.. !
>
> On 27 mai 10 16:22 <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:
>
>> > Hello !
>> >
>> > sorry for english, but, just don't understand why glusterfs is not
>> > destinated to be used over the wan ?
>> > I think that if the files are tiny, there's no problem to use this
>> > solution over wan.. ?
>> >
>> > But okay, if file are large.. (don't know .. 100MB - 200MB and
>> > more.) i
>> > understand that it depend of the internet connection and that's the
>> > replication can be so soo soo slow..
>> >
>> > Please, give me some renseignments about this solution over wan
>>
>> Ok, think of this: ping a server over your LAN. Now ping the server on
>> the
>> WAN you want to replicate to. What's the difference in milliseconds?
>> Now
>> multiply that difference by the number of small files, and make a wild
>> stab at how many packets each will need, and multiply by *that*.
>>
>> How many seconds, not milliseconds, per transaction?
>>
>> Just because it's moving at close to the speed of light does *not*
>> mean
>> there is no measurable time, and it *certainly* does not mean that it
>> doesn't multiply fast.
>>
>> mark
>>