On 01/31/09 09:44, Keith Freedman wrote:
>> Well, I can see a couple of cases where it would be expedient to
>> change the configuration. Lets say one of the machines losses a disk
>> and the machine won't be fixed for a week say. Then, once the machine
>> comes back up, I could use a differen
>>so there should be no need to change your configuratoin, unless you
>>hate seeing all the connection down messages in your logfile.
>
>Well, I can see a couple of cases where it would be expedient to
>change the configuration. Lets say one of the machines losses a
>disk and the machine won't
On 01/28/09 01:36, Keith Freedman wrote:
> At 09:32 AM 1/27/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>> On 01/27/09 02:21, Keith Freedman wrote:
>>> At 10:36 AM 1/26/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>>> I dont see any problems with your config.
>>> other than, if your network connection is very sporadic, t
At 09:32 AM 1/27/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>On 01/27/09 02:21, Keith Freedman wrote:
>>At 10:36 AM 1/26/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>>I dont see any problems with your config.
>>other than, if your network connection is very sporadic, then
>>you'll be caught often by waiting for timeou
On 01/27/09 02:21, Keith Freedman wrote:
> At 10:36 AM 1/26/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>> Are you saying I can't use the local files on machine A (even if I am
>> not touching any files on B) when the network is down even though all I
>> am doing is reading and perhaps writing locally on A?
At 10:36 AM 1/26/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
> > Here, if the network connection fails and is back up in short periods of
> > time you'll alway be experiencing delays as gluster is often waiting for
> > timeouts, then the server is visible again, it auto-heals, then it's not
> > visible and it
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the detailed response.
On 01/26/09 15:31, Keith Freedman wrote:
> At 09:12 AM 1/25/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>> With glusterfs I used unify for the 4 partitions on each machine and
>> then afr'd the two unified disks but was told that this is not a
>> reliable way of d
At 09:12 AM 1/25/2009, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
>Just to second that I'd really appreciate this too. I've been trying to
>setup a couple of machines on a not-too-reliable 100Mbs network with a
>set of partitions each, mirror the same data. Thus far I've been
>managing this with scripts that do
Keith Freedman wrote:
> I just wanted to toss out a thought I had to get it on the table.
>
> For me, the replication features (in any filesystem that supports it)
> serve several purposes
>
> 1, is to have 2 or more copies of the data which are live and useable
> (I think lustre doesn't offer
At 12:42 AM 1/18/2009, Krishna Srinivas wrote:
>Keith,
>
>We had discussion about a translator with functionality similar to
>what you have described. We termed it as "backup" translator. i.e a
>translator which does delayed replication. This gives a better
>response for the application. We can mak
Keith,
We had discussion about a translator with functionality similar to
what you have described. We termed it as "backup" translator. i.e a
translator which does delayed replication. This gives a better
response for the application. We can make a lot of assumptions like
the backup directory will
11 matches
Mail list logo
