<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 21 August 2015 at 23:46, Christian Rice <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crice@pandora.com" target="_blank">crice@pandora.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>I’d like to have a distributed-replicated master volume, and distributed-only slave.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can this be done? Just beginning the research, but so far I’ve only done geo-replication with distributed-only volumes. Tips/caveats on this kind architecture are welcome.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, This can be done. Both master and slave can be of different configurations.<br><br></div><div>But make sure that your slave volume has more effective size available than the master volume.<br><br></div><div>HTH<br><br></div><div>//MS<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The rationale is straightforward—the master volume should be able to stay available with all data when suffering a node loss, but the geo-replicated volumes can be taken offline for repairs and resync as soon as possible.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Christian</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>