<div class="gmail_quote">2012/4/29 Brian Candler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:B.Candler@pobox.com" target="_blank">B.Candler@pobox.com</a>></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Yes. I considered that too. What you have to weigh it up against is the<br>
management overhead:<br>
<br>
- recognising a failed disk<br>
- replacing a failed disk (which involves creating a new XFS filesystem<br>
and mounting it at the right place)<br>
- forcing a self-heal<br>
<br>
Whereas detecting a failed RAID disk is straightforward, and so is swapping<br>
it out.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>So, what will you do? RAID1? No raid?</div><div>How does gluster detect a failed disk with no raid? What I don't understand is how gluster will detect a failure on a disk and the reply with data on the other server.</div>
<div><br></div><div>With a raid controller, if controller detect a failure, will reply with KO to the operating system, but with no raid? What will happens?</div><div><br></div><div>Is safer to use a 24 disks server with no raid and with 24 replicated and distributed bricks (24 on one server and 24 on other server)?</div>