<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com" target="_blank">gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Il 26/05/2016 20:40, Dj Merrill ha scritto:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I believe that is one of the design criteria, for minor revs. For major revs, personally I would want to take things offline and not want to do it "hot", but one of the people more experienced than I will have to chime in here. -Dj <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's true, but in huge environment, taking all down is simply impossible.<br>
I'm not talking about taking down 1 server per time, but taking everything down<br>
at the same time as wrote (if I understood properly) on docs.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If I have those sort of uptime requirements what I typically do is have 2 clusters of vm's and storage so I can have primary/secondary on different clusters so they can be brought down and have the other up. Otherwise regardless of updates or not I run the risk of one failure bringing everything down.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">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>