Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:07:16 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Installing FreeBSD on size limited ZFS partition Message-ID: <dd86ea88-a3c2-4849-268d-e26a86b3d8f9@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <20161214155642.GZ2353@mordor.lan> References: <1bc50da5-d92e-a06d-ddbb-d95b23ffdc24@sentex.net> <20161214153613.GY2353@mordor.lan> <e4c9ef37-94b7-f276-8f47-55beb75859bd@sentex.net> <20161214155642.GZ2353@mordor.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/14/2016 10:56 AM, Julien Cigar wrote: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2016-July/023498.html > > Whats the better way depends of your needs, if you can afford to lose > "some" data use ZFS replication with something like zrep, otherwise I > would you with ZFS + iSCSI (which is what I use in production here), but > be very careful with "automatic failover". > > If it can help this is what I use for my failover script: > https://gist.github.com/silenius/cb10171498071bdbf6040e30a0cab5c2 > (it relies extensively on CARP, so be sure to choose good NICs) Thanks, I was playing around with zrep, but out of the box its a little limited in that it gets confused if a new zfs volume gets created. If that happens, you have to start from scratch. Also need to hack it to work via netcat instead of ssh (boxes are 10G xover cable). I like the idea of zfs syncs, but was hoping to avoid rolling my own version of zrep. Thanks for the threads, they for sure list some of the caveats of HAST and why I am not a big fan of it either. I too am leary of automatic failovers in this case. ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dd86ea88-a3c2-4849-268d-e26a86b3d8f9>