[Gluster-users] hardware issues and new server advice

Strahil Nikolov hunter86_bg at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 25 11:23:09 UTC 2023

Based on my observation multiple small systems deal better than one large server.
If you have a caching layer, then LVM cache is an overkill.
Why don't you mount the old system's volume on one of the new gluster servers and 'cp' from the first FUSE mount point to the new FUSE mount point ?
Best Regards,Strahil Nikolov  
  On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:31, Martin Bähr<mbaehr+gluster at realss.com> wrote:   Excerpts from Strahil Nikolov's message of 2023-03-24 21:11:28 +0000:
> Gluster excells when you have more servers and clients to consume that data.

you mean multiple smaller servers are better than one large server?

> LVM cache (NVMEs)

we only have a few clients. gluster is for us effectively only a
scalable large file storage for one application. new files are written
once and then access to files is rather random (users accessing their
albums) so that i don't see a benefit in using a cache. (and we also
have a webcache which covers most of the repeated access from clients)

> @Martin,
> in order to get a more reliable setup, you will have to either get
> more servers and switch to distributed-replicated volume(s) or

that is the plan. we are not considering dispersed volumes. with the
small file sized that doesn't seem worth it. besides, with regular
volumes the files remain accessible even if gluster itself fails (which
is the case now, as healing causes our raid to fail, we decided to turn
off gluster on the old servers, and simply copy the raw files from the
gluster storage to the new gluster once that is set up).

greetings, martin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20230325/a23a8b0c/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list