On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 04:56:05PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
> While I agree that zfs send is incredibly useful, after reading this post
> I'm asking myself:
>
> a) This already sounds like we're descending the slippery slope of
> 'checkpointing' - which is an incredibly hard problem to solve and
[.
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:33:33PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> > Eric Schrock wrote:
> >
> > >...
> > >Asynchronous remote replication can be done today with 'zfs send' and
> > >zfs receive', though it needs some more work to be truly useful. It has
>
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:33:33PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
Eric Schrock wrote:
...
Asynchronous remote replication can be done today with 'zfs send' and
zfs receive', though it needs some more work to be truly useful. It has
the properties that it doesn't tax
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:33:33PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> Eric Schrock wrote:
>
> >...
> >Asynchronous remote replication can be done today with 'zfs send' and
> >zfs receive', though it needs some more work to be truly useful. It has
> >the properties that it doesn't tax local activity, but
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:33:33PM -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> Eric Schrock wrote:
>
> >...
> >Asynchronous remote replication can be done today with 'zfs send' and
> >zfs receive', though it needs some more work to be truly useful. It has
> >the properties that it doesn't tax local activity, but
Eric Schrock wrote:
...
Asynchronous remote replication can be done today with 'zfs send' and
zfs receive', though it needs some more work to be truly useful. It has
the properties that it doesn't tax local activity, but your data will be
slightly out of sync (depending on how often you sync yo
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:49 +0200, Patrick wrote:
> > In my experience, the approach and solution for "remote mirroring"
> > really depends on two things:
> > 1. are you doing disaster recovery, versus mirroring diversity?
>
> I'm not actually sure, i'm currently mirroring from the one dis
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:27:05PM +0200, Patrick wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've got a question, that i'm sure's been addressed somewhere, so
> sorry if i'm asking the same question twice, but here goes:
>
> I've currently got two linux machines running drbd ( remote device
> mirror ) and it's worki
Hello.
Howdy! :)
Well, this can be a pretty deep topic for a monday morning :-)
Well, monday evening for some of us ;)
In my experience, the approach and solution for "remote mirroring"
really depends on two things:
1. are you doing disaster recovery, versus mirroring diversity?
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:27 +0200, Patrick wrote:
> Hi there,
Hello.
> I've got a question, that i'm sure's been addressed somewhere, so
> sorry if i'm asking the same question twice, but here goes:
>
> I've currently got two linux machines running drbd ( remote device
> mirror ) and it's workin
Hi there,
I've got a question, that i'm sure's been addressed somewhere, so
sorry if i'm asking the same question twice, but here goes:
I've currently got two linux machines running drbd ( remote device
mirror ) and it's working perfectly, but i'd love to use ZFS (* i
ZFS *) but alas, i don't s
11 matches
Mail list logo
