[Gluster-users] Exorbitant cost to achieve redundancy??

John Mark Walker johnmark at redhat.com
Tue Feb 14 18:25:03 UTC 2012

----- Original Message -----
> I'm currently fighting to get GlusterFS replica in an HPC environment
> but the "wasting half the space" argument is hard to fight when
> there's
> a tight budget.  There really is no waste at all, the space is being
> used for full server redundancy (IMHO you need server redundancy, not
> just disk redundancy) and in some use-cases, increased performance
> (in
> other use-cases replica is slower).

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. This is very much on our minds as we look at future roadmaps. 

For now, replica 2 + RAID underneath is a valid solution for the vast majority of use cases. 

There shouldn't be many cases where replica 3 is absolutely necessary - not when you utilize a decent RAID card.

To pose the issue in a slightly different light, what would you want future behavior to be? Is erasure coding something that you view as essential in the near future?


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list