[Gluster-users] glusterfs best usage / best storage type or model

Sat Apr 2 11:13:20 UTC 2016

No ideas? It means I should keep to my first plan?
Raid6 and single volume?

2016-03-29 11:06 GMT+03:00 Roman <romeo.r at gmail.com>:

> According to this:
> http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-November/019443.html
> it is not that easly possible.
>
> 2016-03-29 0:58 GMT+03:00 Roman <romeo.r at gmail.com>:
>
>> and another pretty important thing - will I be able to grow this volume
>> by simpli adding few bricks more? Or how is it going to go with expansion?
>>
>> 2016-03-28 14:49 GMT+03:00 Roman <romeo.r at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> have anyone had any disaster recovery actions on such setup?
>>> For how long it could take to heal the volume in case of disk failure?
>>> and count in this setup means, how many bricks will be counted as bricks
>>> for meta-data ?
>>> Just need some more information on this kind of setup, seems like I like
>>> it :)
>>>
>>> 2016-03-28 14:21 GMT+03:00 Roman <romeo.r at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for an answer. but in the case of 37 8TB bricks the data won't
>>>> be available if one of servers fails anyway :) And it seems to me, that it
>>>> would be even bigger mess to undarstand, what files are up and what are
>>>> down with bricks.. Or am I missing something?  Reading this one
>>>> https://gluster.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Setting%20Up%20Volumes/#creating-dispersed-volumes
>>>> And what would be the redundancy count in case of 37 8TB bricks? still
>>>> 1?
>>>>
>>>> 2016-03-28 11:53 GMT+03:00 Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> You're "wasting" the same amount of space either way. Make 37 8TB
>>>>> bricks and use disperse.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On March 28, 2016 10:33:52 AM GMT+02:00, Roman <romeo.r at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for an option, but it seems that it is not that good in our
>>>>>> situation. I can't waste storage space on bricks for disperse and disperse
>>>>>> volumes require having bricks of the same size. We will start with
>>>>>> distributed volume of uneven size at the beginning. As we are speaking of
>>>>>> archive server, it is not that critical, if some portion of data won't be
>>>>>> available for some time (maintenance time). Having like 22 disks per server
>>>>>> makes the proability of raid5 failure,when 2 or more disks will fail a bit
>>>>>> higher though, so I'll really have to decide something about it :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-03-28 1:35 GMT+03:00 Russell Purinton <
>>>>>> russell.purinton at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might get better results if you forget about using RAID all
>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, GlusterFS supports “disperse” volumes which act like
>>>>>>> RAID5/6. It has the advantage that you can maintain access to things even
>>>>>>> if a whole server goes down. If you are using local RAID for redundancy and
>>>>>>> that server goes offline you’ll be missing files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 27, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Roman <romeo.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Need an advice from heavy glusterfs users and may be devs..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Going to give a try for glusterfs in new direction for me. All the
>>>>>>> time I was using GlusterFS as VM storage for KVM guests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now going to use it as a main distributed storage archive for
>>>>>>> digitalized (scanned) books in one of libraries in Estonia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the very start we are going to scan about 346 GB - 495 GB daily,
>>>>>>> which is about 7000 - 10 000 pages. 600 GB in the future. There are some
>>>>>>> smaller files per book: a small xml file and compressed pdf (while all the
>>>>>>> original files will be tiff). This data goes to production server and then
>>>>>>> we are going to archive it on our new glusterfs archive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this moment, we've got 2 servers:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one with 22x8TB 5400 RPM SATA HDD disks
>>>>>>> second with 15x8TB 5400 RPM SATA HDD disks
>>>>>>> We are planning to add remaining disks to the second server at the
>>>>>>> end of the year, being budget based institue is crap, I know. So it should
>>>>>>> be as easy as extend LVM volume and remount it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both the servers will run raid5 or raid6, haven't decided yet, but
>>>>>>> as we need as much storage space as possibe per server, seems like it will
>>>>>>> be raid5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this moment I'm planing to create just a single distributed
>>>>>>> storage over these two servers and mount them on the production server, so
>>>>>>> it could archive files there. So it would be like 168+112 = 280 TB storage
>>>>>>> pool. We are planing to extend this one anually, by adding HDDs to second
>>>>>>> server at the end of first year and then adding some storage by extending
>>>>>>> the ammount of servers, wich means, just adding the bricks to the
>>>>>>> distributed storage massive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any better solutions or possibilities ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>>>>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>>>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gluster-users mailing list
>>>>>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Roman.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Roman.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Roman.
>

-- 
Best regards,
Roman.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160402/f819d48a/attachment.html>