gluster-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Gluster-devel] AFR comments. Maximizing free space use when using mirro


From: DeeDee Park
Subject: [Gluster-devel] AFR comments. Maximizing free space use when using mirroring.
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:30:12 +0000

Here is my 2c on AFR.

When I setup file servers, the first priority is always to get it up and running, and then later the next priority is to add mirrors/high availability. Somtimes due to business concerns the second priority sometimes does not happen until something drastic happens. By the time that there is budget to get additional drives, typically the drive sizes that are available are also much bigger (remember, they double every 2 years or so). So when I've bought drives, I've gotten 40GB, 80GB, 120Gb, 160GB, 200GB, 250GB, 300GB, 500GB, 750GB... So what I'm saying is that when new drives are bought to either expand the total file server size, or to add additional replicas, the new drives are most of the time bigger than the original drives purchased.

The In the current implementation of AFR, the second brick (in a non well manged environment) will most likely be bigger than the first brick, thus underutilizing additional storage space due to mismatch in disk sizes.

The idea I have is that I want to use as many available commodity parts that I can find and build a largest file server for my customer's needs and reallocating the remaining space for replicas. I still have a lot of these 120GB drives sitting around from a few years ago, and I've got 500/750GB drives. It seems to be a difficult task to match each 120GB drive with another 120GB drive to optimize disk usage for AFR purposes. I could have 2 500GB drives for replication *:2, but if I want to move to *:3 in the future, most likely I'll have some 750GB drives laying around. Using a 750GB as my third brick would most likely waste the remaining 250GB.

Just as RR or ALU puts files anywhere. I envisioned originally that AFR also did the same. If my dataset is larger than the largest possible RAID I can afford, then one brick will never carry all the
files.

What I think would be cool would be to have the AFR on top of the unify so that if the dataset is spread across X drives, that is fine, the remote mirrors would not require the same hardware, and I would just need to purchase the approximate 2X hard drive space at the new co-lo. I can just ask a client "How much disk space are you currently using?". If they say 20TB all using 200GB drives (=100 drives), then I can setup the additional glusterfs replica to utilize 20TB using 750GB drives. I would like to have to buy 27 750GB drives to make up my 20TB, instead of having to buy 100 750GB drives to replicate the existing 100GB drives. (It doesn't make sense to buy 200GB drives when larger drives are available for purchase).

Also, I have the premise that 100% of the dataset is critical (It is all user data), and I cannot say which file extensions should be replicated or should not be replicated. The example that *.c is more critical than *.o probably true, but I know users have told me that they have .o files from systems that are no longer available, so those .o files for that user are critical. Since I cannot specify *.c:2,*.o:1 for some users and *.c:2,*.o:2 for others (nor would I really want to get that involved in the user data details or think I'll have that much free time to investigate that level of detail), it only makes sense to replicate everything eg: *:2 or *:3. It is a cool feature to have. But also if a user specifies *.c:2,*.o:1, then that assumes (with the current implementation of AFR), that the 2nd brick should be smaller than the first brick (Then I have questions as to what happens when there isn't enough space etc).

_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507





reply via email to

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