[Gluster-users] thin arbiter vs standard arbiter

Amar Tumballi atumball at redhat.com
Wed Aug 1 18:04:53 UTC 2018

This recently added document talks about some of the technicalities of the


Please go through and see if it answers your questions.


On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:09 PM, wkmail <wkmail at bneit.com> wrote:

> I see mentions of thin arbiter in the 4.x notes and I am intrigued.
> As I understand it, the thin arbiter volume is
> a) receives its data on an async basis (thus it can be on a slower link).
> Thus gluster isn't waiting around to verify if it actually got the data.
> b) is only consulted in situations where Gluster needs that third vote,
> otherwise it is not consulted.
> c) Performance should therefore be better because Gluster is only
> seriously talking to 2 nodes instead of 3 nodes (as in normal arbiter or
> rep 3)
> Am I correct?
> If so, is thin arbiter ready for production or at least use on
> non-critical workloads?
> How safe is it for VMs images (and/or VMs with sharding)?
> How much faster is thin arbiter setup over a normal arbiter given that the
> normal data only really sees the metadata?
> In a degraded situation (i.e. loss of one real node), would having a thin
> arbiter on a slow link be problematic until everything is healed and
> returned to normal?
> Sincerely,
> -wk
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Amar Tumballi (amarts)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180801/a403daf7/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list