[Gluster-users] Kernel NFS on GlusterFS

[Jim Kinney]

Gluster does the sync part better than corosync. It's not an
active/passive failover system. It more all active. Gluster handles the
recovery once all nodes are back online. 
That requires the client tool chain to understand that a write goes to
all storage devices not just the active one.
3.10 is a long term support release. Upgrading to 3.12 or 4 is not a
significant issue once a replacement for NFS-ganesha stabilizes.
Kernel NFS doesn't understand "write to two IP addresses". That's what
NFS-Ganesha does. The gluster-fuse client works but is slower than most
people like. I use the fuse process in my setup at work. Will be
changing to NFS-Ganesha as part of the upgrade to 3.10.
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 14:50 -0500, Ben Mason wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm designing a 2-node, HA NAS that must support NFS. I had planned
> on using GlusterFS native NFS until I saw that it is being
> deprecated. Then, I was going to use GlusterFS + NFS-Ganesha until I
> saw that the Ganesha HA support ended after 3.10 and its replacement
> is still a WIP. So, I landed on GlusterFS + kernel NFS + corosync &
> pacemaker, which seems to work quite well. Are there any performance
> issues or other concerns with using GlusterFS as a replication layer
> and kernel NFS on top of that?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-- 
James P. Kinney III

Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you
gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his
own tail. It won't fatten the dog.
- Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain

http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180307/9de85bf0/attachment.html>