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

[Roman]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20160329/552e4893/attachment.html>