[Gluster-users] Glusterfs Rack-Zone Awareness feature...

[Jeff Darcy]

> I do not understand why it could be a problem to place the data's replica on
> a different node group.
> If a group of node become unavailable (due to datacenter failure, for
> example) volume should remain online, using the second group.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  If you're talking about initial
placement of replicas, we can place all members of each replica set in
different node groups (e.g. racks).  If you're talking about adding new
replica members when a previous one has failed, then the question is *when*.
Re-populating a new replica can be very expensive.  It's not worth starting
if the previously failed replica is likely to come back before you're done.
We provide the tools (e.g. replace-brick) to deal with longer term or even
permanent failures, but we don't re-replicate automatically.  Is that what
you're talking about?