gluster-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gluster-devel] GlusterFS Spare Bricks?


From: Gordan Bobic
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] GlusterFS Spare Bricks?
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:45:11 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110622 Lanikai/3.1.11

On 10/04/2012 09:39, 7220022 wrote:
Are there plans to add provisioning of spare bricks in a replicated (or
distributed-replicated) configuration? E.g., when a brick in a mirror
set dies, the system rebuilds it automatically on a spare, similar to
how it’d done by RAID controllers.

Nor would it only improve the practical reliability, especially of large
clusters, but it’d also make it possible to make better-performing
clusters off less expensive components. For example, instead of having
slow RAID5 bricks on expensive RAID controllers one uses cheap HBA-s and
stripes a few disks per brick in RAID0 – that’s faster for writes than
RAID 5/6 by an order of magnitude (and, by the way, should improve
rebuild times in Gluster many are complaining about.).A failure of one
such striped brick is not catastrophic in a mirrored Gluster – but it’s
better to have spare bricks standing by strewn across cluster heads.

A more advanced setup at a hardware level involves creating “hybrid
disks” whereas HDD vdisks are cached by enterprise-class SSD-s.It works
beautifully and makes HDD-s amazingly fast for random transactions.The
technology’s become widely available for many $500 COTS
controllers.However, it is not widely known that the results with HDD-s
in RAID0 under SSD cache are 10 to 20 (!!) times better than with RAID 5
or 6.

On reads the difference should be negligible unless the array is degraded. If it's not, your RAID controller is unfit for purpose.

Having said that, a lot of RAID controllers are pretty useless.

There is no way to use RAID0 in commercial storage, the main reason
being the absence of hot-spares.If on the other hand the spares are
handled by Gluster in a form of (cached hardware-RAID0) pre-fabricated
bricks both very good performance and reasonably sufficient redundancy
should be easily achieved.

So why not use ZFS instead? The write performance is significantly better than traditional RAID equivalents and you get vastly more flexibility than with any hardware RAID solution. And it supports caching data onto SSDs.

Gordan



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]