On Sunday 08 March 2015 16.44:13 Marco van Wieringen wrote: > Bruno Friedmann <friedmann.bruno <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Hello Bareos users. > > > > I've a case where the customer would like to have its backup media > > stored on an external qnap nas. > > The nas is setup to export one volume by iscsi (the volume being a > > local raid5) > > > Why use ISCSI that is about the worst overhead possible putting > a filesystem on top of that. Well the inexpensive less intrusive to what was there I guess :-) > QNAP is Linux so you could just compile > the SD to run natively on the server and forget about all the nasty > overhead. If you run a filesystem over ISCSI I think NFS will be just > as bad when the link get dropped. Unless you do ISCSI with failover etc > but I guess you have only one network path anyway. QNAP is based on linux, but compiling and maintaining it for 1 is not worth the effort. Plus if it would certainly with a synology one port to several community or even subscription then I think we should probably think of it. But I would like to build it the way the rest of bareos is build and tested with obs+travis. An idea how to get that ?
> > > I can attach easily an openSUSE bareos small computer to that > > iscsi storage. > > Now my question is what kind of filesystem would you use with > > which option ? > > > One that is resilient to underlying problems, I have seen ext2/ext3 go > crazy and into readonly mode on cluster all the time so those for sure > not as remote filesystem. you certainly want to know that ext4 is behaving the same :-) > > > I know that xfs is good, but I'm concerned by what could > > happen on network errors. > Consistency of xfs and ext4 is about as much as what fsck can fix and > that is metadata only most of the time. e.g. your directory entries look > fine but you could have lost data all over the place. Yeap some file are there, but no more bareos/bacula volume .... Thanks to crappy hardware. > > Should I go to btrfs, I'm not familiar with, so what kind of > > advise you would give if using that one. > > What about the copy-on-write etc? > > > At least it means that your filesystem will always be consistent > as to what consistency means that kind of is determined by the crash > it gets to handle. > > > I'm still less skilled to install a ZFS which I certainly should > No idea how its on Linux but ZFS at least is proven. Then again running > it on ISCSI would not be my choice, it will determine corruptions just > as BTRFS but as to if its possible it depends on what setup you used > mirrored or raidzX is a requirement for it to fix anything otherwise it > will only say you have corrupted data and as the data is also check summed > its questionable what extra it brings. Thanks for the tips, it just confirm the fact that if you want ZFS seriously you have at least 2 nodes of storage with preferably 2 network path. Well playing in soho market is always fun. They want the top for -less :-) At least convinced to have a subscription ;-) In fact most of the time, the problems are coming from bad hardware. and those are becoming more and more are to find (firmware interaction, with nas os etc ... ) Sunday blues ... Thanks. -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Board, fsfe fellowship GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bareos-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
