<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I would suggest using different
partitions for each brick. We use LVM and start off with a
relativity small amount allocated space, then grow the partitions
as needed. If you were to place 2 bricks on the same partition
then the free space is not going to show correctly. Example:<br>
<br>
1TB partition 2 bricks on this partition<br>
<br>
brick: vol-1-a using 200GB<br>
brick: vol-2-a using 300GB.<br>
<br>
Both volumes would show that they have ~500GB free, but in reality
there would be ~500GB that either could use. I don't know if
there would be any other issues with putting 2 or more bricks on
the same partition, but it doesn't seem like a good idea. I had
gluster setup that way when I was first testing it, and it seemed
to work other than the free space issue, but I quickly realized it
would be better to separate out the bricks on to their own
partition. Using LVM allows you to easily grow partitions as
needed.<br>
<br>
my 2 cents.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/12/13, 9:31 AM, David Gibbons wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ9CW+67BKVVZJWzO0Cab9Ymv9FM+wqAoBOsLauYNNC61Pb_Eg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am interested in some feedback on putting multiple bricks
on one physical disk. Each brick being assigned to a different
volume. Here is the scenario:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4 disks per server, 4 servers, 2x2 distribute/replicate</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would prefer to have just one volume but need to do
geo-replication on some of the data (but not all of it). My
thought was to use two volumes, which would allow me to
selectively geo-replicate just the data that I need to, by
replicating only one volume.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A couple of questions come to mind:</div>
<div>1) Any implications of doing two bricks for different
volumes on one physical disk?</div>
<div>2) Will the "free space" across each volume still calculate
correctly? IE, if one volume takes up 2/3 of the total
physical disk space, will the second volume still reflect the
correct amount of used space?</div>
<div>3) Am I being stupid/missing something obvious?</div>
<div><br>
Cheers,</div>
<div>Dave</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users">http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Eric Johnson
713-968-2546
VP of MIS
Internet America
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.internetamerica.com">www.internetamerica.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>