Hi Robert,
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Robert Milkowski wrote:
The problem is that the failure modes are very different for networks and
presumably reliable local disk connections. Hence NFS has a lot of error
handling code and provides well understood error handling semantics. Maybe
what you really want is NFS?
TN> We thought about using NFS as backend for as much as possible applications
TN> but we need to have redundancy for the fileserver itself too
Then use Sun Cluster + NFS, both are for free.
We use a cluster ;) but in the backend it doesn't solve the sync problem
as you mention
Now it won't solve your 'sync' support but maybe you can try: SC + NFS
mounted on clients with directio, UFS on server mounted with directio.
UFS is no option due to it's limitations in size and data safety. We
recently had a severe problem when the UFS log got corrupted due to a
hardware failure (port died on a FCAL switch). The fsck ran for 10+ hours
on the mail server. Even worse, it reported some corrected problems but
running a few more hours in production the system paniced again with
"freeing free block/inode?" At this point we decided that 500GB of mail
is not what we wanna put on UFS or any similar FS anymore
It probably will be really slow, but everythink should be consistent
all the time I guess.
You might be right about. I did a quick check with dtrace on the mail
server and it seems IMAP, sendmail and the others nicely sync data as they
should
Thomas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GPG fingerprint: B1 EE D2 39 2C 82 26 DA A5 4D E0 50 35 75 9E ED
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
