Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:53:38 -0400 From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Converting a non-HAST ZFS pool to a HAST pool Message-ID: <AANLkTi=55qO5uqfv3rkf8SncEo5syznSH%2BTgyhOGTHiz@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20101018222611.GC2375@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20101016222833.GA6765@garage.freebsd.pl> <E1P7nUu-000Fy0-LZ@dilbert.ticketswitch.com> <20101018222611.GC2375@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm wondering if I'm missing something here --- because I'm wondering if running HAST under ZFS isn't a step backwards. My quick read of HAST seems to indicate that it's going to manage two disks and present them as one disk to ZFS. The design problem with this (especially since we're talking a _lot_ of network (and memory) transfers involved) is data corruption --- the idea that ZFS protects data better when it can determine one disk has it right while another disk has it wrong (as it can when it manages the two disks). Wouldn't it be better to just have network (iscsi-like) spools attached to ZFS? Individual spools could still fail. What am I missing? Is there a better description of HAST than the FreeBSD wiki page?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=55qO5uqfv3rkf8SncEo5syznSH%2BTgyhOGTHiz>