On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:16:32AM +1200, Thing wrote:
> I am a bit lost here, why a replica 3 and arbiter 1? ie not replica2
> arbiter1?
You'd have to ask the developers about that (I just use gluster, I'm not
a dev). I agree that "replica 2 arbiter 1" seems more intuitive, but I
suppose "repli
Hi,
I dont have any more hosts available.
I am a bit lost here, why a replica 3 and arbiter 1? ie not replica2
arbiter1? also no distributed part? is the distributed flag
automatically assumed?with a replica3 then there is a quorum (2 of 3)
so no arbiter is needed? I have this running a
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:04:14PM +1200, Thing wrote:
> What I would like to do I think is a,
>
> *Distributed-Replicated volume*
>
> a) have 1 and 2 as raid1
> b) have 4 and 5 as raid1
> c) have 3 and 6 as a raid1
> d) join this as concatenation 2+2+2tb
You probably don't actually want to do t
Hi,
I would like to understand how gluster works better than I do know and in
particular the architecture.
So I have a test configuration of 6 desktops, each has 2 x 1TB disks in a
raid 0 on an esata channel.
What I would like to do I think is a,
*Distributed-Replicated volume*
a) have 1 and 2
