if you are worrying about the disk failure will bring all your data unavailable,the distributed replica volume is a good choice.<br><br>2016年11月17日星期四，jin deng <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheneydeng88@gmail.com');" target="_blank">cheneydeng88@gmail.com</a>> 写道：<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>2016年11月17日星期四，李立 <<a>dylan-lili@foxmail.com</a>> 写道：<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><span style="color:rgb(36,39,41);font-family:Arial,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">In distributed volume, the files will be distributed to different bricks.But,my data is a folder if it's lack of a file,the folder of data will be disabled.So, I want a specific folder will be store one brick to avoid dropping a brick and all data is disable.</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I don't understand your purpose.It seems you want all your data which inside one specific directory to be stored on a fixed brick(without dht) instead of letting the data dispersed among all bricks.IMO,that violates the model of "distributed volume".Not sure if i've misunderstood your purpose.Maybe someone will give a different opinion.</div>
<br><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Thanks,<div>DengJin</div></div><br>
</blockquote>
<br><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Thanks,<div>DengJin</div></div><br>