[Gluster-users] geo-replication vs replicated volumes
gkuri at ieee.org
Wed Jun 10 21:29:55 UTC 2015
Thanks for the replies, it helps to better understand the architecture.
Is master-master planned for geo-replication?
What is the downfall or problems associated with attempting to run basic
replicated volume (synchronous) across servers in separate data centers
with latency <75ms and about 1Gbps of bandwidth between them? The write
load would not be high at all, I'm talking about occasional writes here and
there, less than a megabyte or two per write and maybe 3 or 4 a minute, on
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:14 PM, M S Vishwanath Bhat <msvbhat at gmail.com>
> On 10 June 2015 at 22:38, Aravinda <avishwan at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 06/10/2015 09:43 PM, Gabriel Kuri wrote:
>> > glusterfs doesn't support master-master yet. In your case, one of the
>> servers (A or B or C) should be a master and your client should write to
>> only that volume.
>> > Other two volumes should be read-only till volume in server-A fails for
>> some reason.
>> So the writes from the client will go directly to whichever server is
>> the master, even though the client has mounted the volume on one of the
>> slaves? What about the reads, do they still hit the server (ie slave) the
>> client is connected to or do the reads hit the master as well?
>> To be specific, Gluster Geo-rep doesn't support Master-Master. That means
>> no automatic failover when master Volume goes down. Gluster replicated
>> volumes support Master-Master within the Volume.
>> Replicated Volumes:
>> The replication is synchronous, all writes on the mount will be copied to
>> multiple bricks(replica count) synchronously. If one node is down during
>> the write, other nodes takes care of syncing data when node comes online.
>> This is automatic using self-heal.
>> Replication is between bricks of single volume.
>> Geo-replicated Volumes:
>> Asynchronous replication of whole Gluster Volume. That means their will
>> be delay in syncing data from Master Volume to Slave Volume. Volume
>> topology does not matter Geo-replication works even if Master and Slave
>> Volume types are different.
>> Geo-replication is mainly used as disaster recovery mecanism like
>> backups. Manual failover failback is also supported, if Master Volume goes
>> down Slave Volume can become Master and can establish connection back. It
>> is not supported to have Georep running in both ways at same time.
>> In the case of geo-rep, how is split-brain handled? If the network is
>> down between server A (master) and server B (slave) and the client has
>> mounted to server B, I assume server B will then become the master and
>> writes will then be committed directly to server B, but if writes were also
>> committed to server A by other clients while the network was down, what
>> happens when the network is back up between server A and B, does it just
>> figure out which files had the most recent time stamp and commit those
>> changes across all the servers?
>> Since Master-Master is not supported in Geo-rep, Split brain is not
>> handled. I think there is some confusion between replicated volume and
>> geo-rep. Replicated Volume replicates data within Volume. For example,
>> Create a Gluster Volume with two bricks with replica count as 2.
>> Bricks/Nodes cannot be across data centers. In case of Geo-rep, replication
>> is between two Gluster Volumes.
> Yes, I think you are confused between replication and geo-replication.
> Just to add to what Aravinda mentioned, in AFR (Automatic File
> Replication, that's what it's called in glusterfs) the replication happens
> between the bricks of the same volume. The bricks are expected to be part
> of same network. And the replication is synchronous. You can read more at
> And glusterfs geo-replication is between two (or more) glusterfs volumes.
> These volumes in turn can have replicated setup internally. And volumes are
> generally in different networks. And it's asynchronous one way replication.
> It's mainly used for disaster recovery.
> I found below link which is very old. But the content seems to be valid
>> >> If it's not master-master, how does one get master-master replication
>> working over a WAN?
>> > AFAIK, there is no work around as of now, at least I am not aware of
>> Does the basic replicated volume work in this fashion, reads and writes
>> to all servers? The only problem is it's meant for a low latency network
>> Thanks ...
>> Gluster-users mailing listGluster-users at gluster.orghttp://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gluster-users