<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com" target="_blank">gandalf.corvotempesta@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">2016-09-20 11:57 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <<a href="mailto:pkarampu@redhat.com">pkarampu@redhat.com</a>>:<br>
> I would suggest to use separate volumes for this, because the optimizations<br>
> for VM image store on the volume would slow things down for webservers kind<br>
> of workload IMHO. Most of the perf xlators should be disabled in VM image<br>
> store usecase.<br>
<br>
</span>Different volumes means different bricks/disks, right?<br></blockquote><div>Yes <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
So, if I would like to have all replicated 3 times (1 disk per server)<br>
with 2 volumes, i have to put at least 2 disks per server?<br></blockquote><div><br>Ideally yes. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><br>
> 2hosts in replica plus arbiter.<br>
<br>
</span>Any differences between replica2 + arbiter or replica3 without arbiter?<br>
Replica 3 should be more safe, as data are replicated 3 times.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Replica 3 is more costly compared to Arbiter. If you are comfortable with replica-3 that is the best option.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Pranith<br></div></div>
</div></div>