[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4
From: |
Vikas Gorur |
Subject: |
Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4 |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:23:53 +0530 |
2009/3/19 Gordan Bobic <address@hidden>:
> That's unavoidable to some extent, since the first server is the one that
> is authoritative for locking. That means that all reads have to make a hit
> on the 1st server, even if the data then gets retrieved from another server
> in the cluster. Whether that explains all of the disparity you are seing, I
> don't know.
Not really. There is no need for locking while doing reads. Currently
replicate will use the read-subvolume if specified, and the first
available node if the option is not specified. Read load-balancing is
in the pipeline, but it needs some other code changes to be
implemented first.
Vikas
--
Engineer - Z Research
http://gluster.com/
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, (continued)
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, nicolas prochazka, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Gordan Bobic, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Vikas Gorur, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Gordan Bobic, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Vikas Gorur, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Gordan Bobic, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Vikas Gorur, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Gordan Bobic, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, nicolas prochazka, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Gordan Bobic, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4,
Vikas Gorur <=
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, nicolas prochazka, 2009/03/19
- Re: [Gluster-devel] AFR problem with 2.0rc4, Anand Avati, 2009/03/19