[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer
From: |
Ian Latter |
Subject: |
Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer |
Date: |
Tue, 08 May 2012 15:21:37 +1000 |
> No one node or set of nodes should hold the
> cluster hostage.
Agreed - this is fundamental.
> We are revisiting this situation now because we
> want to scale to 1000s of nodes potentially.
Good, I hate upper bounds on architectures :)
Though I haven't tested my own implementation,
I understand that one implementation of the
discovery protocol that I've used, scaled to
20,000 hosts across three sites in two countries;
this is the the type of robust outcome that can be
manipulated at the macro scale - i.e. without
manipulating per-node details.
> Gluster CLI operations should not time out or
> slow down.
This is critical - not just the CLI but also the
storage interface (in a redundant environment);
infrastructure wears and fails, thus failing
infrastructure should be regarded as the norm/
default.
> If ZK requires proprietary JRE for stability,
> Java will be NO NO!.
*Fantastic*
> My point is to keep things simple as we scale.
I couldn't agree more. In that principle I ask that
each dependency on cluster knowledge be
considered carefully with a minimalist approach.
--
Ian Latter
Late night coder ..
http://midnightcode.org/
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, (continued)
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Louis Zuckerman, 2012/05/07
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Anand Babu Periasamy, 2012/05/08
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Ian Latter, 2012/05/07
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Ian Latter, 2012/05/08
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer,
Ian Latter <=
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Ian Latter, 2012/05/08
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Ian Latter, 2012/05/10
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Ian Latter, 2012/05/10
- Re: [Gluster-devel] ZkFarmer, Ian Latter, 2012/05/20