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: >=20 > 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. >=20 > Out of curiosity I'm also testing a ZFS + iSCSI + CARP at the moment,=20= > I'm in the early tests, haven't done any heavy writes yet, but ATM it=20= > works as expected, I havent' managed to corrupt the zpool. I must be too old school, but I don=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t roll back zpool replications :) ZFS receive does a lot of sanity checks as well. As long as your zfs = receive doesn=E2=80=99t involve a rollback to the latest snapshot, it won=E2=80=99t destroy anything by mistake. = Just make sure that your replica datasets aren=E2=80=99t mounted and zfs receive won=E2=80=99t 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>