Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:52:24 +0200 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <284D58D1-1C62-4519-A46B-7D0E8326B86B@ultra-secure.de> 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
> Am 16.05.2016 um 12:08 schrieb Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org>: > > Hi, > > We need to set up a ZFS pool with redundance. The main goal is high availability - uptime. > > I can see a few of paths to follow. > > 1. HAST + ZFS > > 2. Some sort of shared storage, two machines sharing a JBOD box. > > 3. ZFS replication (zfs snapshot + zfs send | ssh | zfs receive) > > 4. using something else than ZFS, even a different OS if required. There’s always GlusterFS. Recently ported to FreeBSD and available as net/gulsterfs (10.3 recommended, AFAIK). At work, we use it on Ubuntu - but not with so much data. On Linux, I’d use it on top of XFS. For our Cloud-Storage, we went with ScaleIO (which is Linux only). You need more than two nodes with Gluster, though (for production use) I think my co-worker said four at least. If you have the money and don’t mind Linux, ScaleIO is probably the best you can buy at the moment. While licensed at the GByte-Level (yeah, EMC…) it can be used free of charge, unsupported.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?284D58D1-1C62-4519-A46B-7D0E8326B86B>