Thanks for the advice.
---
Gilberto Nunes Ferreira
(47) 99676-7530 - Whatsapp / Telegram
Em qui., 14 de dez. de 2023 às 09:54, Strahil Nikolov
escreveu:
> Hi Gilberto,
>
>
> Have you checked
>
14.12.2023 16:48, Marcus Pedersén пишет:
The problem is that I can not get my head around how
to think when disaster strikes.
So one fileserver burns up, there is still the other
fileserver and from my understanding the ceph system
will start to replicate the files on the same fileserver
no,
Hi all,
I am looking in to ceph and cephfs and in my
head I am comparing with gluster.
The way I have been running gluster over the years
is either a replicated or replicated-distributed clusters.
The small setup we have had has been a replicated cluster
with one arbiter and two fileservers.
On 2023-12-14 07:48, Marcus Pedersén wrote:
Hi all,
I am looking in to ceph and cephfs and in my
head I am comparing with gluster.
The way I have been running gluster over the years
is either a replicated or replicated-distributed clusters.
Here are my observations but I am far from an expert
Hi Gilberto,
Have you checked
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_gluster_storage/3.5/html/administration_guide/chap-configuring_red_hat_storage_for_enhancing_performance
?
I think that you will need to test the virt profile as the settings will
prevent some bad situations -
Big raid isn't great as bricks. If the array does fail, the larger brick means
much longer heal times.
My main question I ask when evaluating storage solutions is, "what happens when
it fails?"
With ceph, if the placement database is corrupted, all your data is lost
(happened to my employer,
Thanks for you feedback!
Please, do not get me wrong, I really like gluster
and it has served us well for many, many years.
But as from previous posts about gluster project health
this worries me and I want to be able to have a good
alternative prepared in case of
Gluster is great and aligns
