<div dir="ltr">Sorry only read replicated in your first mail, I squashed the distributed one :'(<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">Cordialement,<br>Mathieu CHATEAU<br><a href="http://www.lotp.fr" target="_blank">http://www.lotp.fr</a></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-08-04 9:47 GMT+02:00 Florian Oppermann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gluster-users@flopwelt.de" target="_blank">gluster-users@flopwelt.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In my current configuration I have a distributed and replicated volume<br>
which is (to my understanding) similar to a raid 10.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On <a href="tel:04.08.2015%2008" value="+33408201508">04.08.2015 08</a>:51, Mathieu Chateau wrote:<br>
> In a replicated scheme, it's like a raid 1 (mirror).<br>
> You write as slow as the slowest disk. Client will wait for all brick<br>
> writes confirmation.<br>
><br>
> In this scheme, you wouldn't much more than 3 bricks.<br>
><br>
> I think you mox up with distributed scheme, which is like a raid 0 stripped.<br>
> This one get more perf when adding bricks. But a single file is<br>
> present only in one brick.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>