p
А вот про Minio пруф: https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/3478
> Minio in this case is working as intended, minio cannot be expanded or shrinkable in this manner. Minio is different by design. It is designed to solve all the needs of a single tenant. Spinning minio per tenant is the job of external orchestration layer. Any addition and removal means one has to rebalance the nodes. When Minio does it internally, it behaves like blackbox. It also adds significant complexity to Minio. Minio is designed to be deployed once and forgotten. We dont even want users to be replacing failed drives and nodes. Erasure code has enough redundancy built it. By the time half the nodes or drives are gone, it is time to refresh all the hardware. If the user still requires rebalancing, one can always start a new minio server on the same system on a different port and simply migrate the data over. It is essentially what minio would do internally. Doing it externally means more control and visibility. Minio is meant to be deployed in static units per tenant.
> Minio in this case is working as intended, minio cannot be expanded or shrinkable in this manner. Minio is different by design. It is designed to solve all the needs of a single tenant. Spinning minio per tenant is the job of external orchestration layer. Any addition and removal means one has to rebalance the nodes. When Minio does it internally, it behaves like blackbox. It also adds significant complexity to Minio. Minio is designed to be deployed once and forgotten. We dont even want users to be replacing failed drives and nodes. Erasure code has enough redundancy built it. By the time half the nodes or drives are gone, it is time to refresh all the hardware. If the user still requires rebalancing, one can always start a new minio server on the same system on a different port and simply migrate the data over. It is essentially what minio would do internally. Doing it externally means more control and visibility. Minio is meant to be deployed in static units per tenant.
