From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 21 03:18:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123F1106564A for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:18:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from araujobsdport@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gg0-f182.google.com (mail-gg0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEACF8FC18 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 03:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnm2 with SMTP id m2so4936518ggn.13 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:18:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WHIQ3RU7l954YravjkyoWpYuaevDZNEyLzVozZY9kv0=; b=S/tqMq/tLRJrgmJaRLrIVCR+3QpP8jWVBahO314j/TJC1mvfRk3brRNA8z9QBhJ0vl RBDbdq3XUiAT1rPBoF51SRpqxSZxjdhb3Y4czN2mDFXU29lvfkvwI0NTEDrIcjP3AWyT z+6sfcl/CdWwmy12LGDU7VxvGxvilOnqgd1qzmRoac4oyg3zk2LioZll9KKGh2H42Nr7 /yrsHZPotJxQXGtJUTCl1BlFk3HEEibODBEn5h4DlgB0a8HlClyl+o1eWGfcxyCFtf9E cME/fSxJwzH1eM6lp86omoEjfO6eNTBQLsf+FKxc5h3FH0/86lgn2dIkMb57s3xotYCR l1kA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.49.3 with SMTP id uy3mr2198919icb.2.1337570312006; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.31.196 with HTTP; Sun, 20 May 2012 20:18:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FB77248.50709@digsys.bg> References: <4FB77248.50709@digsys.bg> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:18:31 +0800 Message-ID: From: Marcelo Araujo To: Daniel Kalchev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mirror of Raidz for data reliability X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: araujo@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 03:18:33 -0000 2012/5/19 Daniel Kalchev > > > On 18.05.12 19:55, Trent Nelson wrote: > >> So, my thinking is=C5=A0 because both machines can see all disks, the ma= ster >> could import the zpool as normal, and the slave could import it read-onl= y. >> (Or not import it at all...) >> > > The proper way of doing it is "not import it at all". ZFS is not an share= d > filesystem. > > If you have the second host mount the zpool even if read-only, you only > guarantee that data on the pool will not be corrupted, but you cannot avo= id > the second "read-only" host panic or otherwise crash if it tries to acces= s > data which is no longer where it thinks it is, because the second host > doesn't have access to the primary host's in-memory metadata about ZFS. > Since ZFS is copy on write filesystem, chances are you will be accessing > data that is no longer valid. Refreshing the internal ZFS state between t= wo > or more hosts is non-trivial (if it was, Sun would have done this, as it > suits their usage) and in any case performance will suffer at least as mu= ch > as an true networked filesystem does, compared to "native" ZFS. > > Yeap, you are right! In my environment I'm not doing ACTIVE-ACTIVE servers, so, one of those controller always will be in stand-by mode. In case someone need to have all data available in both machines at the same time, the best choice right now is use HAST. But my solution is to reach another necessity. Best Regards, --=20 Marcelo Araujo araujo@FreeBSD.org