Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:36:12 -0700 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@freebsd.org>, Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <CAOgwaMthvQ7y3boTw3Yk=ETXgL64OGPV1Pw022SVTB5vCtfhVg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <573A5116.3090302@quip.cz> References: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org> <F3716A47-BC73-4C51-BF7C-911BCFE4D29F@sarenet.es> <89D73122-FAC7-4449-AAB3-C4BBE74B960A@FreeBSD.org> <573A5116.3090302@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > Palle Girgensohn wrote on 05/17/2016 00:36: > >> >> 16 maj 2016 kl. 15:51 skrev Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es>: >>> >>> >>> On 16 May 2016, at 12:08, Palle Girgensohn <girgen@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> Which means that a possible corruption causing bug in ZFS would vaporiz= e >>> the data of both replicas. >>> >>> 3. ZFS replication (zfs snapshot + zfs send | ssh | zfs receive) >>>> >>> >>> If you don=E2=80=99t have a hard requirement for synchronous replicatio= n (and, >>> in that case, I would opt for a more application >>> aware approach) it=E2=80=99s the best method in my opinion. >>> >> >> That was exactly my thought 18 months ago, and we set up two systems wit= h >> zfs snapshot + zfs send | ssh | zfs receive. It works, but the problem i= s >> it just too slow and a complete sync takes like 10 minutes for all the f= ile >> systems. We are forced to sync the file systems one at a time to get the >> kind of control and separation we need. Even if we could speed that up >> somehow, we are really looking for a more recilient system. Also, consta= nt >> snapshotting and writing makes scrub very slow so we need to tune down t= he >> amount of syncing every fourth week-end to scrub. It's OK but not optima= l, >> so we're pondering for something better. >> >> My first choice is really HAST at the moment, but I also dont find much >> written in the last couple of years, apart from some articles about sett= ing >> it up in very minimal testbeds or posts about performance and stability >> troubles. This makes me wonder, is HAST actively maintained? Is it stabl= e, >> used and loved by the community? I'd love to hear some success stories w= ith >> farily large installations of at least 20 TB or so. >> > > I am not using HAST personally but I read about success with HAST and ZFS > somewhere in FreeBSD mailing lists. I don't have a direct link / bookmark > for it. Maybe you will find it thru search engine. > > Miroslav Lachman > _______________________________________________ > f <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> > If you search HAST and ZFS in Google , it will provide a long list of possible related pages . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMthvQ7y3boTw3Yk=ETXgL64OGPV1Pw022SVTB5vCtfhVg>