[Gluster-users] Add single server

[Shyam]

On 05/01/2017 02:55 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
> <gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com
> <mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     2017-05-01 20:43 GMT+02:00 Shyam <srangana at redhat.com
>     <mailto:srangana at redhat.com>>:
>     > I do agree that for the duration a brick is replaced its replication count
>     > is down by 1, is that your concern? In which case I do note that without (a)
>     > above, availability is at risk during the operation. Which needs other
>     > strategies/changes to ensure tolerance to errors/faults.
>
>     Oh, yes, i've forgot this too.
>
>     I don't know Ceph, but Lizard, when moving chunks across the cluster,
>     does a copy, not a movement
>     During the whole operation you'll end with some files/chunks
>     replicated more than the requirement.
>
>
> Replace-brick as a command is implemented with the goal of replacing a
> disk that went bad. So the availability was already less. In 2013-2014 I
> proposed that we do it by adding brick to just the replica set and
> increase its replica-count just for that set once heal is complete we
> could remove this brick. But at the point I didn't see any benefit to
> that approach, because availability was already down by 1. But with all
> of this discussion it seems like a good time to revive this idea. I saw
> that Shyam suggested the same in the PR he mentioned before.

Ah! I did not know this, thanks. Yes, in essence this is what I suggest, 
but at that time (13-14) I guess we did not have EC, so in the current 
proposal I include EC and also on ways to deal with pure-distribute only 
environments, using the same/similar scheme.

>
>
>
>     If you have a replica 3, during the movement, some file get replica 4
>     In Gluster the same operation will bring you replica 2.
>
>     IMHO, this isn't a viable/reliable solution
>
>     Any change to change "replace-brick" to increase the replica count
>     during the operation ?
>
> It can be done. We just need to find time to do this.

Agreed, to add to this point, and to reiterate. We are looking at "+1 
scaling", this discussion helps in attempting to converge on a lot of 
why's for the same at least, if not necessarily the how's.

So, Gandalf, it will be part of the roadmap, just when we maybe able to 
pick and deliver this is not clear yet (as Pranith puts it as well).

>
>
> --
> Pranith