From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 30 23:29:56 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2351065674; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:29:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mvolaski@aecom.yu.edu) Received: from mx1.aecom.yu.edu (mx1.aecom.yu.edu [129.98.1.51]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C2A8FC15; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:29:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mvolaski@aecom.yu.edu) Received: from draco.aecom.yu.edu (draco.aecom.yu.edu [129.98.1.160]) by mx1.aecom.yu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE849F00A0; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:29:55 -0400 (EDT) X-AuditID: 816201a0-a9be3bb0000015ac-4d-4890f97263af Received: from smtp1.aecom.yu.edu (smtp1.aecom.yu.edu [129.98.1.61]) by draco.aecom.yu.edu (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id CF764718003; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [129.98.90.227] (usseinstein.aecom.yu.edu [129.98.90.227]) by smtp1.aecom.yu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E644B6CD; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1216925561.6489.6.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> References: <1216925561.6489.6.camel@lanshark.dmv.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:29:27 -0400 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Maurice Volaski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: jonathan@onegoodidea.com, sven@dmv.com, david.robillard@gmail.com, pjd@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Would ZFS and gmirror work well together in a two-node failover cluster? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:29:56 -0000 >My findings have been that ZFS and ggate[cd] do *not* play nicely I am not that surprised. Gmirror doesn't look like it was designed to be as integrated as dedicated remote mirroring solutions such as Linux drbd or AVS (Sun's "drbd") are. And it's still not clear whether gmirror could be configured to stay out of way should disk errors occur. I've been setting up a virtual system in OpenSolaris and it's starting to look like my Linux-based drbd system. I do hope FreeBSD fixes the outstanding issues and also gives these the scheme more functionality so it works like drbd. FreeBSD ought to have something like that. :-) >As was suggested in other followups, it would seem that zfs send/recv >may be a viable option depending on whethere it is granular enough >(timewise) to be practical. > The post at http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-January/045168.html highlights an important difference between zfs send/recv and an integrated remote mirroring solution like AVS. The more I read about AVS, the more it sounds like drbd. For example, I can monitor it as it keeps things in sync. I guess I've been spoiled by drbd for all these years and that includes a fair share of unplanned failovers. Thanks for the advice. -- Maurice Volaski, mvolaski@aecom.yu.edu Computing Support, Rose F. Kennedy Center Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University