I have 32GB RAM in all of my production GlusterFS nodes. GlusterFS
itself takes up very little of that. There's other services on there
that use up a bit (Samba, rsnapshot, etc) but even then
kernel+applications don't get over 4GB (even with stupid Java-based
proprietary LSI RAID card monitoring software that gobbles up a GB all
on it's own).
Lots of RAM in file servers (even nodes for distributed file systems
like GlusterFS) isn't a bad thing. Linux itself will happily use up
everything else as filecache, which is a good thing.
-Dan
Dan Mons
Skunk Works
Cutting Edge
http://cuttingedge.com.au
On 8 February 2014 03:19, Scott Dungan wrote:
> Thanks Dan. I think I get it now. One more question:
>
> The size of the Gluster volume we want to create is 150TB. We are either
> going to do a distribute only with 4 nodes or a distribute+repl2 with 8
> nodes (depends on budget). Considering this, do you have any server ram
> recommendations. The starting point is going to be 32GB, but should we be
> thinking of 64 or 128?
>
> -Scott
>
>
>
> On 2/6/2014 7:07 PM, Dan Mons wrote:
>>
>> Replies inline:
>>
>> On 7 February 2014 10:11, Scott Dungan wrote:
>>>
>>> I am new to Gluster and I am having a hard time grasping how Gluster
>>> functions in distribute mode vs. distribute+replication. I am planning on
>>> having 5 servers, with each server hosting a raid6-backed 36TB brick. For
>>> simplicity, lets just pretend this is a 40TB brick. Here are my
>>> questions:
>>>
>>> 1. If I do a distribute configuration only, usable capacity of the
>>> Gluster
>>> volume will be 5x40TB or 200TB?
>>
>> Using "40TB" as a round number per brick:
>>
>> distribute (no replicate) would be a single ~200TB GlusterFS volume.
>>
>>> 2. In this configuration, what would clients see if one of the servers
>>> were
>>> to fail?
>>
>> Lots of errors. Typically, every fifth file or directory would be
>> missing, and you'd see lots of question marks in your "ls -l" output.
>>
>>> 3. When the server comes back up, what steps would need to be taken to
>>> make
>>> the Gluster volume consistent again?
>>
>> In a distribute-only setup, there's no redundancy. So there's no
>> "consistency" so to speak. When the missing volume came online, the
>> files it holds would be available again.
>>
>>> 4. if I do a distributed replicated (2) volume, will my usable capacity
>>> become 160TB or 100TB, or perhaps something else entirely?
>>
>> 5 servers is an uneven amount of bricks. You'd end up with 120TB, but
>> 40TB of that wouldn't be replicated. A 6th brick would solve that
>> problem, and you'd have ~120TB in full distribute+replicate(2).
>>
>>> 5. In this configuration, one server may be removed for maintenance and
>>> the
>>> file system stays consistent?
>>
>> Theoretically yes. I try to keep my replicated brick downtime to a
>> minimum though. Similar to the ideas behind a RAID mirror, I don't
>> like running in production on only one copy of something for too long.
>>
>> -Dan
>
>
> --
>
> Scott A Dungan
> Senior Systems Administrator
> Geological and Planetary Sciences
> California Institute of Technology
> Office: (626) 395-3170
> Cell: (626) 993-4932
>
>
> ___
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users@gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
