On 06/06/2012 07:50 PM, Bastian Scholz wrote: > Hi all, > > firstly, its cool stuff you made :-) > > Thanks to all participant. > > Maybe it helps, if we can collect some use-cases here? >
Hi Bastian, Thanks for your feedbacks. Yes, we are highly appreciated at constructive feedback from end users and it will definitely make a difference on Sheepdog, towards a better product. > Am 2012-06-06 12:59, schrieb Liu Yuan: >> On 06/06/2012 06:54 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> 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. > > I am a user of a small setup. It includes six sheeps in two herds > (zones, meaning two server) in a Test-Setup at the moment... > > For production we use actually "cluster" some hosts for virtual > machines and replicating their data with drbd. We are > experimenting with sheepdog, because we need to extend these > solution in the near future. > > Sheepdog seems to be a very nice solution for this, get some > servers, put a few disks into and start a sheep for each disk > and let sheepdog take care of the redundancy... > > If we are running out of diskspace, add some new discs or change > to bigger ones and let sheepdog handle that, too. Similar, if we > need more cpu-power, with sheepdog, we can easily add a new > server which integrates seamlessly. > > Such _easy_ and powerfull implementation I didnt see with other > solutions at the moment. If we starting sheepdog in a production > environment I think we will have three herds with overall 9 to > 15 sheeps, which _will_ extend in the future... > Well, the membership management backend such as corosync can only reliably support less than 20 nodes. This means you can't add more nodes into a running cluster with Corosync when number exceeds 15~20, See more info about it, https://github.com/collie/sheepdog/wiki > As Yuan mentioned, it is maybe not the designed purpose or > the average use-case, but in my eyes, sheepdog could be a > reasonable solution even for small numbers of nodes. > Yes, Christoph's patch will hit the performance a lot if the cluster is less than 10 I guess, because with smaller cluster, more data of the virtual disk will be located in local node but we won't get a shortcut to the local storage with the patch. Thanks, Yuan -- sheepdog mailing list sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog