<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body>
<p>I don't exactly know about the internals of clients and server, but I was just thinking that, as the files are replicated, and as the local brick would always reply faster than the distant one, maybe for reading, the local brick would likely be used, thus speeding up acces to the file compared to distant file access (This is what I can observe from my test setup).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My main concern here is on file locking with using two different clients. Can this setup work, or this is definitely not something that can work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>François</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Le 06-04-2012 20:55, David Coulson a écrit :</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>I am not aware of a mechanism where you can force a read from only one brick, but write to both, short of having reads done out of a totally separate directory structure.</div>
<div>Someone can correct me if this is wrong, but that is how my replica configuration behaves w/ 3.2.5.</div>
<div>David</div>
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: #000000; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></span></div>
<br />
<div>
<div>On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:24 AM, François Legal wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">
<div>
<p>Hello,</p>
<div> </div>
<p>This is my first post to the list.</p>
<div> </div>
<p>I have 2 distant sites linked through a 10MBits MPLS.</p>
<p>To improve user experience, we would like to setup a replicated glusterfs on the 2 sites, such that a user on site A would access the files from site A replicated server, and a user on site B would access the files from site B replicated server.</p>
<p>So I was thinking of a dual server setup, each being client and server for its site, so that read access to files would be fast, and write access would be as fast as MPLS allows it to be.</p>
<p>The files would then be shared using samba to the users.</p>
<div> </div>
<p>In this situation, I don't know if I should prefer client side AFR or server side AFR (I guess server side AFR would make the files on both sites unavailable if MPLS fails).</p>
<div> </div>
<p>Anyway, I gave a test drive on this, and seem to be having locking issues (users on both side can modify the same file without anything preventing this).</p>
<div> </div>
<p>Can anybody comment on this.</p>
<div> </div>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<div> </div>
<p>François</p>
<div> </div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br />Gluster-users mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br />http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
</body></html>