From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 25 13:01:35 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1A8106564A for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:01:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CA98FC19 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Numgl-0005x6-Ug for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:01:31 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:01:31 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:01:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:01:21 +0100 Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <4BAA3409.6080406@ionic.co.uk> <4BAAA415.1000804@ionic.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20100118 Thunderbird/3.0 In-Reply-To: <4BAAA415.1000804@ionic.co.uk> Subject: Re: Multi node storage, ZFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:01:35 -0000 On 03/25/10 00:45, Michal wrote: > backend storage for databases. It's all well and good having 1 ZFS > server, but it's fragile in the the sense of no redundancy, then we have > 1 ZFS server and a 2nd with DRBD, but that's a waste of money...think 12 > TB, and you need to pay for another 12TB box for redundancy, and you are > still looking at 1 server. I am thinking a cheap solution but one that > has IO throughput, redundancy and is easy to manange and expand across > multiple nodes. Well, what I described is kind of like that, centered around trying to best balance redundancy and cost. For example, you don't need two 12 TB boxes in a mirror. Depending on what you need you can get only one 12 TB box at the start, then with ZFS trivially extend that storage with another 12 TB box when you need it, repeat to infinity (each box will internally have RAID6 or something like that). Of course then you have a problem if a single box fails, which you can get around by using triplets of 12 TB boxes in RAIDZ, etc. etc.