Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:24:40 +0200 From: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> To: Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST + ZFS + NFS + CARP Message-ID: <1AA52221-9B04-4CF6-97A3-D2C2B330B7F9@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <20160811091016.GI70364@mordor.lan> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 11 Aug 2016, at 11:10, Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> wrote: > > As I said in a previous post I tested the zfs send/receive approach (with > zrep) and it works (more or less) perfectly.. so I concur in all what you > said, especially about off-site replicate and synchronous replication. > > Out of curiosity I'm also testing a ZFS + iSCSI + CARP at the moment, > I'm in the early tests, haven't done any heavy writes yet, but ATM it > works as expected, I havent' managed to corrupt the zpool. I must be too old school, but I don’t quite like the idea of using an essentially unreliable transport (Ethernet) for low-level filesystem operations. In case something went wrong, that approach could risk corrupting a pool. Although, frankly, ZFS is extremely resilient. One of mine even survived a SAS HBA problem that caused some silent corruption. The advantage of ZFS send/receive of datasets is, however, that you can consider it essentially atomic. A transport corruption should not cause trouble (apart from a failed "zfs receive") and with snapshot retention you can even roll back. You can’t roll back zpool replications :) ZFS receive does a lot of sanity checks as well. As long as your zfs receive doesn’t involve a rollback to the latest snapshot, it won’t destroy anything by mistake. Just make sure that your replica datasets aren’t mounted and zfs receive won’t complain. Cheers, Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1AA52221-9B04-4CF6-97A3-D2C2B330B7F9>