Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:15:48 +0200 From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> To: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> Cc: juergen.gotteswinter@internetx.com, FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HAST + ZFS + NFS + CARP Message-ID: <7EECBD48-5980-4387-8AAE-91D89F576DA1@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <CALfReycz5SNg9fCCMBb=%2Bzs_tEG10wjxBLBh2yXYQHQFbHMp0g@mail.gmail.com> References: <6035AB85-8E62-4F0A-9FA8-125B31A7A387@gmail.com> <20160703192945.GE41276@mordor.lan> <20160703214723.GF41276@mordor.lan> <65906F84-CFFC-40E9-8236-56AFB6BE2DE1@ixsystems.com> <B48FB28E-30FA-477F-810E-DF4F575F5063@gmail.com> <61283600-A41A-4A8A-92F9-7FAFF54DD175@ixsystems.com> <20160704183643.GI41276@mordor.lan> <AE372BF0-02BE-4BF3-9073-A05DB4E7FE34@ixsystems.com> <20160704193131.GJ41276@mordor.lan> <E7D42341-D324-41C7-B03A-2420DA7A7952@sarenet.es> <20160811091016.GI70364@mordor.lan> <1AA52221-9B04-4CF6-97A3-D2C2B330B7F9@sarenet.es> <472bc879-977f-8c4c-c91a-84cc61efcd86@internetx.com> <1AE36A3B-A2BA-47D2-A872-1E7E9EFA201D@sarenet.es> <CALfReycz5SNg9fCCMBb=%2Bzs_tEG10wjxBLBh2yXYQHQFbHMp0g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:11, krad <kraduk@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > I totally agree here i would used some batch replication in general. = Yes it doesnt provide the ha you require, but then if you need that = maybe a different approach like a distributed file system is a better = solution. Even then though I would still have my standard replication to = a box not part of the distributed filesystem via rsync or something, = just for ass covering. Admittedly this gets problematic when the = datasets have large deltas and/or objects. If your deltas are large you need a network with enough bandwidth to = support it anyway. And rsync can be a nightmare depending on the number of files you keep and their sizes. That=E2=80=99s an = advantage of ZFS. In simple terms, an incremental send just copies a = portion of a transaction log together with its associated data blocks. The = number of files does not hurt performance so much as it does with rsync, which can be unusable. And if you have real time requirements for replication (databases) using = the built-in mechanisms in your DBMS will be generally more robust. Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7EECBD48-5980-4387-8AAE-91D89F576DA1>