[Gluster-users] Remove an artificial limitation of disperse volume

Olivier Lambert lambert.olivier at gmail.com
Tue Feb 7 13:16:37 UTC 2017

Hi everyone!

I'm currently working on implementing Gluster on XenServer/Xen Orchestra.

I want to expose some Gluster features (in the easiest possible way to
the user).

Therefore, I want to expose only "distributed/replicated" and
"disperse" mode. From what I understand, they are working differently.
Let's take a simple example.

Setup: 6x nodes with 1x 200GB disk each.

* Disperse with redundancy 2 (4+2): I can lose **any 2 of all my
disks**. Total usable space is 800GB. It's a kind of RAID6 (or RAIDZ2)
* Distributed/replicated with replica 2: I can lose 2 disks **BUT**
not on the same "mirror". Total usable space is 600GB. It's a kind of

So far, is it correct?

My main point is that behavior is very different (pairing disks in
distributed/replicated and "shared" parity in disperse).

Now, let's imagine something else. 4x nodes with 1x 200GB disk each.

Why not having disperse with redundancy 2? It will be the same in
terms of storage space than distributed/replicated, **BUT** in
disperse I can lose any of 2 disks. In dist/rep, only if they are not
on the same "mirror".

So far, I can't create a disperse volume if the redundancy level is
50% or more the number of bricks. I know that perfs would be better in
dist/rep, but what if I prefer anyway to have disperse?

Conclusion: would it be possible to have a "force" flag during
disperse volume creation even if redundancy is higher that 50%?



More information about the Gluster-users mailing list