Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 09:53:26 +0200 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> To: Joe Love <joe@getsomewhere.net> Cc: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <8E674522-17F0-46AC-B494-F0053D87D2B0@pingpong.net> In-Reply-To: <5DA13472-F575-4D3D-80B7-1BE371237CE5@getsomewhere.net> References: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org> <5DA13472-F575-4D3D-80B7-1BE371237CE5@getsomewhere.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 17 maj 2016 kl. 18:13 skrev Joe Love <joe@getsomewhere.net>: >=20 >=20 >> 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 avail= ability - 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 h= ere, I find mainly unsolved problems. Please share any success stories or ot= her experiences. >>=20 >> Shared storage still has a single point of failure, the JBOD box. Apart f= rom that, is there even any support for the kind of storage PCI cards that s= upport 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 th= e amount of data. >>=20 >> We prefer to keep ZFS as we already have a rather big (~30 TB) pool and a= lso tools, scripts, backup all is using ZFS, but if there is no solution usi= ng ZFS, we're open to alternatives. Nexenta springs to mind, but I believe i= t is using shared storage for redundance, so it does have single points of f= ailure? >>=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 BS= DMag just released an issue with an article entitled =E2=80=9CAdding ZFS to t= he FreeBSD dual-controller storage concept.=E2=80=9D > https://bsdmag.org/download/reusing_openbsd/ >=20 > My understanding in this setup is that the only single point of failure fo= r this model is the backplanes that the drives would connect to. Depending o= n your controller cards, this could be alleviated by simply using multiple d= rive shelves, and only using one drive/shelf as part of a vdev (then stripe o= r whatnot over your vdevs). >=20 > It might not be what you=E2=80=99re after, as it=E2=80=99s basically two s= ystems with their own controllers, with a shared set of drives. Some expans= ion from the virtual world to real physical systems will probably need addit= ional variations. > I think the TrueNAS system (with HA) is setup similar to this, only withou= t the split between the drives being primarily handled by separate controlle= rs, but someone with more in-depth knowledge would need to confirm/deny this= . >=20 > -Jo Hi, Do you know any specific controllers that work with dual head? Thanks., Palle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8E674522-17F0-46AC-B494-F0053D87D2B0>