From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jun 14 13:53:32 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FE31006935 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:53:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank2@fjl.co.uk) Received: from bs1.fjl.org.uk (bs1.fjl.org.uk [84.45.41.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bs1.fjl.org.uk", Issuer "bs1.fjl.org.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545796B893 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:53:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank2@fjl.co.uk) Received: from roundcube.fjl.org.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bs1.fjl.org.uk (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w5EDrPjX091129 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:53:26 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from frank2@fjl.co.uk) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:53:25 +0100 From: Frank Leonhardt To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: upgrade of an iSCSI zpool mirror Organization: FJL Microsystems In-Reply-To: <20180611130407.GT48472@mordor.lan> References: <20180611130407.GT48472@mordor.lan> Message-ID: <7ea3c3d0b1d05b032ff99fe977cf7a69@roundcube.fjl.org.uk> X-Sender: frank2@fjl.co.uk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:53:32 -0000 On 2018-06-11 14:04, Julien Cigar wrote: > Hello, > > We have a "low-cost" active/passive HA ZFS based filer (with > NFS4/SMB/... on top) which consist of two tiny HP Proliant DL20 > with 2 x 2 To disks in each. > > It works well, but those are still running FreeBSD 10.3 and I'd like to > upgrade to 11.x. During the upgrade process the pool should be > read-only > available. I planned to do something like: > Has anyone ever done something similar and/or does it sound good to > you? I've tried various combinations, but not that one I'm afraid. I'm not a fan of iSCSI except as a work-around, but FWIW I can't spot anything wrong with your plan, but I'm not sure where NFS fits in. You will probably want to upgrade the zpools at some point (optional). I've yet to get a fully redundant ZFS implementation up and running, as other solutions have been more useful - such as sending incremental datasets to a backup at a different location. I've also run it on top of HAST, but it scared me. One day I plan to look at heartbeat/pacemaker (available in ports/net), which is supposed to be the thing for it. In your situation, I think I'd proceed as follows: Set up a spare machine (e.g. desktop). Do a zfs send to it. Turn off samba/nfs Do a zfs send of any last minute changes. Make the spare machine live, but read-only. They relax and do whatever I wanted to reconfigure the rack servers. Just a thought!