Re: [MooseFS-Users] Minimum setup, local servers, remove VM as a master

[Alexander A. <ba...@ya...>]

Hi guys!


By the way I have to share my small experience.

MooseFS works in VM badly :--(  I'v checked it many times with all 
MoseFS components.

On a hardware it works much better.

So Master is a critical part of cluster. Everything really depends on 
its response time.

I suggest not to use Master in VM.


WBR

Alexander


On 18.06.2018 14:43, Remolina, Diego J wrote:
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
>
> I assume you are trying 3.x
>
>
> You may want to also run the metalogger process on the second chunk 
> server. You can then manually convert that server to a master if your 
> master goes down since you are using it as a metalogger. On MooseFS 
> 3.x *Pro* (paid version), you get multiple masters and HA is easily 
> achieve by a multiple entry DNS A record.
>
>
> Do note, that MooseFS 4.x is closed to being released and it will have 
> the multiple master feature in the free community version, so you no 
> longer have to pay to get the multiple master feature.
>
>
> MooseFS requires the master to work, if the master is down and there 
> are no other metadata masters available or you do not promote a 
> metalogger to master, then your filesystem will not work.
>
>
> Some tips on masters, you can run them on a separate machine, you need 
> good amounts of RAM (look at docs in website for exact formulas) and 
> since it is a single threaded process, you want the fastest cores you 
> can get, not necessarily the most number of cores for your metadata 
> server.
>
>
> https://moosefs.com/support/#documentation
>
>
> HTH,
>
>
> Diego
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Nicolas Embriz <nb...@te...>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2018 6:32:45 AM
> *To:* moo...@li...
> *Subject:* [MooseFS-Users] Minimum setup, local servers, remove VM as 
> a master
> Hi, I am testing Moosefs on FreeBSD 11 so far using only 2 instances 
> one behaving like master and chunkserver and other only as a 
> chunkserver, so far all pretty good but while testing I notice that if 
> the master goes down all the chunks become unresponsive, In my try to 
> make a more redundant setup I am thinking of using a tiny VM (1GB ram 
> 20GB disk) only to keep the master up and allow the 2 chunks to be 
> operable, but I have some doubts.
>
> If I understand properly the metadata is stored in the master and the 
> chunckservers just store the raw data, therefore the master doesn’t 
> need to be huge in storage as the chunservers , also when writing to 
> data on one chunk server, only the metadata is sent to the master and 
> the raw data is synced only between the chunks, and if I am 
> understanding correctly the more intense use of network/bandwidth is 
> between chunks and not the master, is this correct?  ( thinking on 
> this to have a basic setup in where I could have 2 in home servers in 
> the same network, but only the master in a remote tiny VM "always 
> online" )
>
> Now regarding the master, if it is down, I can’t access /read the 
> files in the chunkservers, is there a way to configure the 
> chunkservers to work in an online mode or being available to continue 
> using what they have to until the master comes back and then just re-sync.
>
> regards.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>
>
> _________________________________________
> moosefs-users mailing list
> moo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users