<div dir="ltr"><div>Have you considered the disperse volume? We'd normally advocate 6 servers for a +2 redundancy factor though.<br><br></div>Paul C<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:47 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aaron@ajserver.com" target="_blank">aaron@ajserver.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Gluster users,<br>
<br>
I am looking to implement GlusterFS on my network for large, expandable,<br>
and redundant storage.<br>
<br>
I have 5 servers with 1 brick each. All I want is a simple replication<br>
that requires at least 3 of the 5 bricks have a copy of the data so I can<br>
lose any 2 bricks without data loss. I have tried replica 3 with 5 bricks<br>
but it seems to complain that my # of bricks must be a multiple of of my<br>
replica count.<br>
<br>
There a simple replication method like replica=3 with 5 bricks with<br>
glusterfs? Is there a better or different technology I can use for this?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Aaron<br>
<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>