Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:13:18 -0500 From: Joe Love <joe@getsomewhere.net> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <5DA13472-F575-4D3D-80B7-1BE371237CE5@getsomewhere.net> In-Reply-To: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org> References: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On May 16, 2016, at 5:08 AM, Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> = wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We need to set up a ZFS pool with redundance. The main goal is high = availability - uptime. >=20 > I can see a few of paths to follow. >=20 > 1. HAST + ZFS >=20 > 2. Some sort of shared storage, two machines sharing a JBOD box. >=20 > 3. ZFS replication (zfs snapshot + zfs send | ssh | zfs receive) >=20 > 4. using something else than ZFS, even a different OS if required. >=20 > My main concern with HAST+ZFS is performance. Google offer some = insights here, I find mainly unsolved problems. Please share any success = stories or other experiences. >=20 > Shared storage still has a single point of failure, the JBOD box. = Apart from that, is there even any support for the kind of storage PCI = cards that support dual head for a storage box? I cannot find any. >=20 > We are running with ZFS replication today, but it is just too slow for = the amount of data. >=20 > We prefer to keep ZFS as we already have a rather big (~30 TB) pool = and also tools, scripts, backup all is using ZFS, but if there is no = solution using ZFS, we're open to alternatives. Nexenta springs to mind, = but I believe it is using shared storage for redundance, so it does have = single points of failure? >=20 > Any other suggestions? Please share your experience. :) >=20 > Palle >=20 I don=E2=80=99t know if this falls into the realm of what you want, but = BSDMag just released an issue with an article entitled =E2=80=9CAdding = ZFS to the FreeBSD dual-controller storage concept.=E2=80=9D https://bsdmag.org/download/reusing_openbsd/ My understanding in this setup is that the only single point of failure = for this model is the backplanes that the drives would connect to. = Depending on your controller cards, this could be alleviated by simply = using multiple drive shelves, and only using one drive/shelf as part of = a vdev (then stripe or whatnot over your vdevs). It might not be what you=E2=80=99re after, as it=E2=80=99s basically two = systems with their own controllers, with a shared set of drives. Some = expansion from the virtual world to real physical systems will probably = need additional variations. I think the TrueNAS system (with HA) is setup similar to this, only = without the split between the drives being primarily handled by separate = controllers, but someone with more in-depth knowledge would need to = confirm/deny this. -Joe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5DA13472-F575-4D3D-80B7-1BE371237CE5>