On 06/06/2012 06:54 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:52:16PM +0800, Liu Yuan wrote: >> At your convenience :) Maybe two (small cluster and bigger one) would >> suffice. With cached FD pool, we might not lose that much performance >> for a quick thought, though, but this is quite radical change of design, >> numbers will definitely help it in. Kazum, how do you think of this change? > > What do you define as a small cluster? I would expect to see > substancial differences with a three node cluster, but then again I > would advice people to not even think about sheepdog for a setup that > small. > > I'd say performance numbers only start to really matter for 20,30+ > nodes, or does anyone disagree? >
Some users in the list claims that they use 2 nodes sheepdog cluster similar to a raid storage. But I think inherently sheepdog should run much more nodes. let's keep 'small' as is 5~15, which corosync can manage well. Thanks, Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog