Il 2020-06-21 14:20 Strahil Nikolov ha scritto:
With every community project , you are in the position of a Betta
Tester - no matter Fedora, Gluster or CEPH. So far , I had
issues with upstream projects only diring and immediately after
patching - but this is properly mitigated with a reasonable
patching strategy (patch test environment and several months later
patch prod with the same repos).
Enterprise Linux breaks (and alot) having 10-times more users and
use cases, so you cannot expect to start to use Gluster and assume
that a free peoject won't break at all.
Our part in this project is to help the devs to create a test case for
our workload , so regressions will be reduced to minimum.
Well, this is true, and both devs & community deserve a big thanks for
all the work done.
In the past 2 years, we got 2 major issues with VMware VSAN and 1
major issue with a Enterprise Storage cluster (both solutions are
quite expensive) - so I always recommend proper testing of your
software .
Interesting, I am almost tempted to ask you what issue you had with
vSAN, but this is not the right mailing list ;)
From my observations, almost nobody is complaining about Ganesha in
the mailing list -> 50% are having issues with geo replication,20%
are having issues with small file performance and the rest have
issues with very old version of gluster -> v5 or older.
Mmm, I would swear to have read quite a few posts where the problem was
solved by migrating away from NFS Ganesha. Still, for hyperconverged
setup a problem remains: NFS on loopback/localhost is not 100% supported
(or, at least, RH is not willing to declare it supportable/production
ready [1]). A fuse mount would be the more natural way to access the
underlying data.
I can't say that a replace-brick on a 'replica 3' volume is more
riskier than a rebuild of a raid, but I have noticed that nobody is
following Red Hat's guide to use either:
- a Raid6 of 12 Disks (2-3 TB big)
- a Raid10 of 12 Disks (2-3 TB big)
- JBOD disks in 'replica 3' mode (i'm not sure about the size RH
recommends, most probably 2-3 TB)
So far, I didn' have the opportunity to run on JBODs.
For the RAID6/10 setup, I found no issues: simply replace the broken
disk without involing Gluster at all. However, this also means facing
the "iops wall" I described earlier for single-brick node. Going
full-Guster with JBODs would be interesting from a performance
standpoint, but this complicate eventual recovery from bad disks.
Does someone use Gluster in JBOD mode? If so, can you share your
experience?
Thanks.
[1] https://access.redhat.com/solutions/22231 (accound required)
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489889 (old, but I can
not find anything newer)
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it [1]
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
________
Community Meeting Calendar:
Schedule -
Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC
Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
