Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:15:39 +0200 From: Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> To: Borja Marcos <borjam@sarenet.es> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST + ZFS + NFS + CARP Message-ID: <20160811101539.GM70364@mordor.lan> In-Reply-To: <1AA52221-9B04-4CF6-97A3-D2C2B330B7F9@sarenet.es> References: <20160703214723.GF41276@mordor.lan> <65906F84-CFFC-40E9-8236-56AFB6BE2DE1@ixsystems.com> <B48FB28E-30FA-477F-810E-DF4F575F5063@gmail.com> <61283600-A41A-4A8A-92F9-7FAFF54DD175@ixsystems.com> <20160704183643.GI41276@mordor.lan> <AE372BF0-02BE-4BF3-9073-A05DB4E7FE34@ixsystems.com> <20160704193131.GJ41276@mordor.lan> <E7D42341-D324-41C7-B03A-2420DA7A7952@sarenet.es> <20160811091016.GI70364@mordor.lan> <1AA52221-9B04-4CF6-97A3-D2C2B330B7F9@sarenet.es>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:24:40AM +0200, Borja Marcos wrote: > > > On 11 Aug 2016, at 11:10, Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> wrote: > > > > As I said in a previous post I tested the zfs send/receive approach (with > > zrep) and it works (more or less) perfectly.. so I concur in all what you > > said, especially about off-site replicate and synchronous replication. > > > > Out of curiosity I'm also testing a ZFS + iSCSI + CARP at the moment, > > I'm in the early tests, haven't done any heavy writes yet, but ATM it > > works as expected, I havent' managed to corrupt the zpool. > > I must be too old school, but I don’t quite like the idea of using an essentially unreliable transport > (Ethernet) for low-level filesystem operations. > > In case something went wrong, that approach could risk corrupting a pool. Although, frankly, Yeah.. although you could have silent data corruption with any broken hardware too. Some years ago I suffered a silent data corruption due to a broken RAID card, and had to restore from backups.. > ZFS is extremely resilient. One of mine even survived a SAS HBA problem that caused some > silent corruption. Yep, and I would certainly not use another FS to do that. Scrubbing the pool more regularly is also something to do. > > The advantage of ZFS send/receive of datasets is, however, that you can consider it > essentially atomic. A transport corruption should not cause trouble (apart from a failed > "zfs receive") and with snapshot retention you can even roll back. You can’t roll back > zpool replications :) > > ZFS receive does a lot of sanity checks as well. As long as your zfs receive doesn’t involve a rollback > to the latest snapshot, it won’t destroy anything by mistake. Just make sure that your replica datasets > aren’t mounted and zfs receive won’t complain. > > > Cheers, > > > > > Borja. > > > -- Julien Cigar Belgian Biodiversity Platform (http://www.biodiversity.be) PGP fingerprint: EEF9 F697 4B68 D275 7B11 6A25 B2BB 3710 A204 23C0 No trees were killed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCgAGBQJXrFBIAAoJELK7NxCiBCPA5JsQAMOTJhdRd+NhiuSe3tggOkHb ZGZfaCuTPLsTg2enL7iFNpV2HIT9guiE88cZzr7tB5GGwJtIVT/JBZ3tkKbLo4bu +v82RbZxEDR8XhJPPtDM6mziqIuIMzhoya03LqrDW1BKhOPM3wBCYXSZj6TW15gZ ++koMV1QQzCOku8tjzG0yLbuDZ5q1fpadq9EfIV/4B10d/O3kfYilr500Lagc9x2 bNU0j5u+MwAr3lQjXtgfhg34YM7TAAS8vIJM1AzFKC9Sh6WKANOOJ2xWLkQVg583 LOSdhQ8LF+gwSQMPkDSnGYyvLw6pBaxQQZQDOT+V9bOY+r7zfOXuMWObO9LcM5r5 hT6J5xpIbs4y1uoPjmFSudbZ0oiQ9C8XR60W2tzTBPatgCc/s5zurz1iYwbIIR9C r34jUcRSYJd9gVHRhDdrBt3Pxb/kifaGAgbaZwRudSij51ynmADwYcJvY9evYdOF qkjPYtJNvETBSisWJs2Y/qTuYLmZl1n8n8jqS8pHwCtAAt7rBPHtZGwek41E6n59 7TWDmmt3XiFz4kTfDw8RErsP8c4TJo5VDbDJVdOQCwDBWuiP8o1BzG6tjNi/tF+W qVwoWL16vi2Qt4frDvcSiPCDzQVqdp7qLIgYpmzUh91Rd6LRQ3HFI+sIz+Cs9AyU rkQIvybQBCVqiYPN3EKC =e1vn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160811101539.GM70364>