Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 09:41:44 +0200 From: InterNetX - Juergen Gotteswinter <jg@internetx.com> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <cc321bd9-afd2-b512-86a9-b4509187d9ed@internetx.com> In-Reply-To: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org> References: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Am 5/16/2016 um 12:08 PM schrieb Palle Girgensohn: > Hi, > > We need to set up a ZFS pool with redundance. The main goal is high availability - uptime. > > I can see a few of paths to follow. > > 1. HAST + ZFS dont do this, this has already been discussed some time ago. afaik nothing changed until this https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2014-October/020084.html > > 2. Some sort of shared storage, two machines sharing a JBOD box. take care when choosing sas hba and expander, avoid sata behind sas with dual expander jbods you will be able to build an ha setup, but i highly recommend to avoid any home brew solutions. go for rsf-1. > > 3. ZFS replication (zfs snapshot + zfs send | ssh | zfs receive) > > 4. using something else than ZFS, even a different OS if required. > > My main concern with HAST+ZFS is performance. Google offer some insights here, I find mainly unsolved problems. Please share any success stories or other experiences. > performance isnt the real problem, check the older discussion mentioned above. > Shared storage still has a single point of failure, the JBOD box. Apart from that, is there even any support for the kind of storage PCI cards that support dual head for a storage box? I cannot find any. > the jbods are just a dumb piece of metal with an expander mounted. so far, i never had a broken one. > We are running with ZFS replication today, but it is just too slow for the amount of data. > replicate more often to keep the delta between each snapshot as small as possible? maybe even 10G crosslink if possible? > We prefer to keep ZFS as we already have a rather big (~30 TB) pool and also tools, scripts, backup all is using ZFS, but if there is no solution using ZFS, we're open to alternatives. Nexenta springs to mind, but I believe it is using shared storage for redundance, so it does have single points of failure? > > Any other suggestions? Please share your experience. :) > > Palle >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cc321bd9-afd2-b512-86a9-b4509187d9ed>