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

[Roman]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160329/cad25d29/attachment.html>