[Gluster-users] Gluster Installation and Benchmarks

[David Pusch]

The objective is to create a redundant system. Shouldn't gluster be writing on all 6 nodes simultaneously rather than sequentially? Else it would seem like a rather poor choice for highly redundant systems.
Regards
-- 
David Pusch


On Mittwoch, 10. August 2011 at 14:37, Whit Blauvelt wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:22:55PM +0200, David Pusch wrote:
> 
> > we now did another test where we mounted the Volume on the client and shut
> > down all Servers but one. We then transferred a 1 GB test file to the Volume.
> > The transfer took around 10 seconds. We then brought up another server from the
> > Cluster and again transferred a 1 GB file. Transfer time now was roughly 20
> > seconds. We proceeded in this manner for the last two servers, and each time
> > the transfer time increased by ca. 10 seconds.
> 
> >  an 18 brick distributed replicated Volume with a replica 6 setting.
> 
> David,
> 
> Why "replica 6"? That means you're keeping a copy of each file physically on
> each server. So if writing the file file to one takes 10 seconds, writing
> the file to a second takes another 10 seconds, and so on, that kind of makes
> sense. You can't transfer a single file to two places as fast as to one.
> 
> Having more than two copies of any single file is unusual. Having more than
> three - I'm not sure why anyone would do that for local storage.
> 
> Whit

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110810/466a264d/attachment.html>