[Gluster-users] Possible to use gluster w/ email services + Tuning for fast replication

[Rick King]

Ed, thank you for your response!

>> Are you examining the second node directly, ie not by mounting it?

This is an interesting question. I am just examining the 2nd node directly, it wasn't obvious to me that the 2nd node needed to mount the data from the 1st node. I was just merely expecting the data to be replicate to the 2nd node. So my rationale is thinking I should run the following command on the 2nd node:

mount -t glusterfs hostnameA:/test /mnt


The commands I used to create the volume from the server (hostnameA)

1) gluster volume create test replica 2 transport tcp hostnameA:/opt hostnameB:/opt

2) gluster volume start test

3) mount -t glusterfs hostnameA:/test /mnt

Someone sent a message regarding a tutorial that I haven't read yet, so I am going to work through that tutorial, and see if I can answer some of my own questions. :)

Thank you again Ed for the tidbit regarding the latency issue, and your comment regarding HTPC applications. 

~~Rick


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed W" <lists at wildgooses.com>
To: "Gluster Users" <gluster-users at gluster.org>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2010 2:29:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Possible to use gluster w/ email services + Tuning for fast replication


> Right now, I am testing out a 2 node setup, with one server replicating data to another node. One thing I noticed was when I created a file or directory on the server, the new data does not replicate to the other node. The only time data is synced from server to the other node is when I run "gluster volume rebalance test start". Is this normal? I had envisioned gluster would constantly replicate changes from the server to the other nodes, am I off base?

Are you examining the second node directly, ie not by mounting it?  I 
think the point is that replication only happens when you "observe" the 
second node?

Glusterfs is targeted for HTPC applications where typically the nodes 
are all connected over high performance interlinks.  It appears that 
performance degrades very quickly as the latency between nodes increases 
and so whether the solution works for you is largely going to be 
determined by the latency between nodes on your network connection.

I'm not actually sure what some representative numbers should be?  I 
have two machines hooked up using bonded-rr intel gigabit cards 
(crossover to each other) and these ping at around 0.3ms.  However, I 
have one other machine on a gigabit connection, hooked up to a switch 
and that sometimes drops to around 0.15ms...  I believe infiniband will 
drop that latency to some few tens of microseconds?

So basically every file access on my system would suffer a 0.3ms access 
latency.  This is better than a spining disk with no cache which comes 
in more like 3-10ms, but obviously it's still not brilliant

Please let us know how you get on?

Good luck

Ed W
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users at gluster.org
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it ('Message') is intended only for the use of the recepient (s) named and may contain confidential information. Opinions, conclusion and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of King7.