[Gluster-users] afr with gluster command line - possible?

[Brian Candler]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:44:32PM +0100, lejeczek wrote:
>    yes, precisely
>    in the past I had running AFRs, this way
>     box A looback client -> box A server <-> box B server <- box B
>    loopback client
>    but similarly replace local loopback client with legitimate separate
>    client that would have only access to one brick's one NIC

Sorry, you've lost me again. What do you mean by a "loopback client" or a
"legitimate client"?

A client is a client, and a brick is a brick.

If you happen to run a client on the same physical hardware as a brick, that
makes no difference to the architecture.

So if you have server1 and server2, both running as bricks, that's fine.
Then you create an AFR volume out of those two bricks, that's fine too.
Then if a [FUSE native] client mounts this volume it will talk to both
bricks, that's fine too.

If the client happens to be located on server1, then it makes no difference
- it too will talk to server1 and server2.

Your diagram suggests that "box A server" (brick) talks to "box B server",
but I don't think it does, unless you're doing NFS. More accurately I'd
say it's like this:

     +---------+     +----------+
     | client  |     |  .client |
     |    |  `---------'-.  |   |
     |    |  ,---------'  | |   |
     |    v v  |     |    v v   |
     |  brick  |     |   brick  |
     +---------+     +----------+

>    the simple idea was the client did not have to know about all the
>    bricks/servers

The native FUSE client learns this from the volume info and configures
itself automatically.  Is there a problem with this?

>    and I'd think this would be what most of of us would like, there would
>    be quite a few situations where this is greatly helpful
>    nowadays this seems impossible, or am I wrong?

Unfortunately I don't understand what you're asking for, so I can't really
give any suggestions!

Regards,

Brian.