From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Wed Aug 17 09:15:52 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02C2BBC8EB for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:15:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from borjam@sarenet.es) Received: from cu1176c.smtpx.saremail.com (cu1176c.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.148.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F6EC1A88 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:15:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from borjam@sarenet.es) Received: from [172.16.8.36] (izaro.sarenet.es [192.148.167.11]) by proxypop02.sare.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35D0B9DC642; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:15:49 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: HAST + ZFS + NFS + CARP From: Borja Marcos In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:15:48 +0200 Cc: juergen.gotteswinter@internetx.com, FreeBSD FS Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7EECBD48-5980-4387-8AAE-91D89F576DA1@sarenet.es> References: <6035AB85-8E62-4F0A-9FA8-125B31A7A387@gmail.com> <20160703192945.GE41276@mordor.lan> <20160703214723.GF41276@mordor.lan> <65906F84-CFFC-40E9-8236-56AFB6BE2DE1@ixsystems.com> <61283600-A41A-4A8A-92F9-7FAFF54DD175@ixsystems.com> <20160704183643.GI41276@mordor.lan> <20160704193131.GJ41276@mordor.lan> <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> To: krad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:15:53 -0000 > On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:11, krad 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.