Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:04:22 +0200 From: Ben RUBSON <ben.rubson@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST + ZFS + NFS + CARP Message-ID: <6035AB85-8E62-4F0A-9FA8-125B31A7A387@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160630185701.GD5695@mordor.lan> References: <20160630144546.GB99997@mordor.lan> <71b8da1e-acb2-9d4e-5d11-20695aa5274a@internetx.com> <AD42D8FD-D07B-454E-B79D-028C1EC57381@gmail.com> <20160630153747.GB5695@mordor.lan> <63C07474-BDD5-42AA-BF4A-85A0E04D3CC2@gmail.com> <678321AB-A9F7-4890-A8C7-E20DFDC69137@gmail.com> <20160630185701.GD5695@mordor.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 30 Jun 2016, at 20:57, Julien Cigar <julien@perdition.city> wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:32:17AM -0500, Chris Watson wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Sent from my iPhone 5 >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Yes that's another option, so a zpool with two mirrors (local +=20 >>>> exported iSCSI) ? >>>=20 >>> Yes, you would then have a real time replication solution (as HAST), = compared to ZFS send/receive which is not. >>> Depends on what you need :) >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> ZFS would then know as soon as a disk is failing. >>=20 >> So as an aside, but related, for those watching this from the peanut = gallery and for the benefit of the OP perhaps those that run with this = setup might give some best practices and tips here in this thread on = making this a good reliable setup. I can see someone reading this thread = and tossing two crappy Ethernet cards in a box and then complaining it = doesn't work well.=20 >=20 > It would be more than welcome indeed..! I have the feeling that HAST > isn't that much used (but maybe I am wrong) and it's difficult to find=20= > informations on it's reliability and concrete long-term use cases... >=20 > Also the pros vs cons of HAST vs iSCSI I made further testing today. # serverA, serverB : kern.iscsi.ping_timeout=3D5 kern.iscsi.iscsid_timeout=3D5 kern.iscsi.login_timeout=3D5 kern.iscsi.fail_on_disconnection=3D1 # Preparation : - serverB : let's make 2 iSCSI targets : rem3, rem4. - serverB : let's start ctld. - serverA : let's create a mirror pool made of 4 disks : loc1, loc2, = rem3, rem4. - serverA : pool is healthy. # Test 1 : - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverB : stop ctld ; - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverB : start ctld ; - serverA : make all pool disks online : it works, pool is healthy. # Test 2 : - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverA : export the pool ; - serverB : import the pool : it does not work, as ctld locks the disks = ! Good news, nice protection (both servers won't be able to access the = same disks at the same time). - serverB : stop ctld ; - serverB : import the pool : it works, 2 disks missing ; - serverA : let's make 2 iSCSI targets : rem1, rem2 ; - serverB : make all pool disks online : it works, pool is healthy. # Test 3 : - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverB : stop ctld ; - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverB : import the pool : it works, 2 disks missing ; - serverA : let's make 2 iSCSI targets : rem1, rem2 ; - serverB : make all pool disks online : it works, pool is healthy, but = of course data written at step3 is lost. # Test 4 : - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverB : stop ctld ; - serverA : put a lot of data into the pool ; - serverA : export the pool ; - serverA : let's make 2 iSCSI targets : rem1, rem2 ; - serverB : import the pool : it works, pool is healthy, data written at = step3 is here. # Test 5 : - serverA : rsync a huge remote repo into the pool in the background ; - serverB : stop ctld ; - serverA : 2 disks missing, but rsync still runs flawlessly ; - serverB : start ctld ; - serverA : make all pool disks online : it works, pool is healthy. - serverB : ifconfig <replication_interface> down ; - serverA : 2 disks missing, but rsync still runs flawlessly ; - serverB : ifconfig <replication_interface> up ; - serverA : make all pool disks online : it works, pool is healthy. - serverB : power reset ! - serverA : 2 disks missing, but rsync still runs flawlessly ; - serverB : let's wait for server to be up ; - serverA : make all pool disks online : it works, pool is healthy. Quite happy with these tests actually :) Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6035AB85-8E62-4F0A-9FA8-125B31A7A387>