Hello Mattias,
Saturday, November 15, 2008, 12:24:05 AM, you wrote:
MP On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 00:46, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
That is _not_ active-active, that is active-passive.
If
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mattias Pantzare
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:48 PM
To: David Pacheco
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] continuous replication
I think you're confusing our clustering feature with the remote
replication feature. With active
Brent Jones wrote:
*snip*
a 'zfs send' on the sending host
monitors the pool/filesystem for changes, and immediately sends them to
the
receiving host, which applies the change to the remote pool.
This is asynchronous, and isn't really different from running zfs send/recv
in a loop. Whether
I think you're confusing our clustering feature with the remote
replication feature. With active-active clustering, you have two closely
linked head nodes serving files from different zpools using JBODs
connected to both head nodes. When one fails, the other imports the
failed node's pool and
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
That is _not_ active-active, that is active-passive.
If you have a active-active system I can access the same data via both
controllers at the same time. I can't if it works like you just
described. You can't call it
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
That is _not_ active-active, that is active-passive.
If you have a active-active system I can access the same data via both
controllers at the same time. I can't if it works like you just
described.
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 00:46, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25PM +0100, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
That is _not_ active-active, that is active-passive.
If you have a active-active system I can access the same data via both
rt == River Tarnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rt currently i crontab zfs send | zfs recv for this
doesn't it also fall over if the stream falls behind? I mean, what if
it takes longer than ten minutes? What if the backup node goes away
and then comes back? What if the master node panics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi,
are there any RFEs or plans to create a 'continuous' replication mode for ZFS?
i envisage it working something like this: a 'zfs send' on the sending host
monitors the pool/filesystem for changes, and immediately sends them to the
receiving host,
On Thu 13/11/08 12:04 , River Tarnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
are there any RFEs or plans to create a 'continuous' replication mode for
ZFS?i envisage it working something like this: a 'zfs send' on the sending
hostmonitors the pool/filesystem for changes, and immediately sends them to
of the specifics of how, but it might provide ideas of how
it can be accomplished.
Regards.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] continuous replication
From: Brent Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED], zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Date: Wed Nov 12 16:46:37 2008
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brent Jones:
It sounds like you need either a true clustering file system or to draw back
your plans to see changes read-only instantly on the secondary node.
well, the idea is to have two separate copies of the data, for backup / DR.
being able to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl Doami:
As an aside, replication has been implemented as part of the new Storage
7000 family. Here's a link to a blog discussing using the 7000
Simulator running in two separate VMs and replicating w/ each other:
that's interesting,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:58 PM, River Tarnell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daryl Doami:
As an aside, replication has been implemented as part of the new Storage
7000 family. Here's a link to a blog discussing using the 7000
Simulator running in
14 matches
Mail list logo
