Hi , As Christian has mentioned ... bit more detailed information will do us good.. Had explored Cephfs -- but performance was an issue vis-a-vis zfs when we tested ( more than a year back) , so we did not get into details. I will let the Cephfs experts chip in here on the present state of Cephfs How are you using zfs on your main site .. nfs/cifs / iscsi How much data are we talking about ? Yes one machine is a SPOF but the questions you should ask or answer : Is there a business requirement to restore data in a defined time ? How much data is in play here ? what are the odds it fails (hw quality is improving by the day -- does mean it wont fail) ? How fast can one replace failed HW (We have spare HW always avaialbe) ? do you need always on backup, especially offsite backup? Have you explored Tape option ?
We are using zfs on solaris and freebsd as a filer ( nfs/cifs) and we keep three copies of snapshot (We have 5 TB of data ) - local on filers ( snapshot every hour for 2 days) - onsite on another machine 1 Week (snapshot copy every 12 hrs on a machine onsite ) - offsite (snapshot copy every day for 4 weeks --> then from offsite to tape). For DB backup we have a system in place but it does not rely on zfs snapshot, Would love to know how you manage DB backups with zfs snapshots. ZFS is a mature technology .. P.S We use ceph for openstack (ephemeral /cinder / glance ) .. with no backup. (One year on we are still learning new things and it has just worked) On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Christian Balzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:28:20 +0200 Cybertinus wrote: > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > I'm looking at Ceph as an alternative for my current storage solution, > > but I'm wondering if it is the right choice for me. I'm hoping you guys > > can help me decide. > > > > The current setup is a FreeBSD 10.1 machine running entirely on ZFS. The > > function of the machine is offsite backup for important data. For some > > (fairly rapidly changing) data this server is the only backup of it. But > > because the data is changing fairly quickly (every day at least) I'm > > looking to get this server more HA then it is now. > > It is just one FreeBSD machine, so this is an enormous SPOF off course. > > > But aside from the SPOF part that machine is sufficient for your usage, > right? > Care to share the specs of it and what data volume (total space used, daily > transactions) we're talking about> > > > The most used functionality of ZFS that I use is the snapshot technology. > > I've got multiple users on this server and each user has it's own > > filesystem within the pool. And I just snapshot each filesystem regularly > > and that way I enable the users to go back in time. > > I've looked at the snapshot functionality of Ceph, but it's not clear to > > me what I can snapshot with it exactly. > > > > Furthermore: what is the best way to hook Ceph to the application I use > > to transfer the data from the users to the backup server? Today I'm using > > OwnCloud, which is (in essence) a WebDAV server. Now I'm thinking about > > replacing OwnCloud with something custom build. That way I can let PHP > > talk directly with librados, which makes it easy to store the data. > > Or I can keep on using OwnCloud and just hook up Ceph via CephFS. This > > has the added advantage that I don't have to get my head around the > > concept of object storage :p ;). > > > I'm slightly confused here, namely: > You use owncloud (I got a test installation on a VM here, too), which > uses a DB (mysql by default) to index the files uploaded. > How do you make sure that your snapshots are consistent when it comes to > DB files other than being lucky 99.9% of the time? > > I'll let the CephFS experts pipe up, but the usual disclaimers about > CephFS stability do apply, in particular the latest (beta) version of Ceph > has this line on top of the changelog: > --- > Highlights here include lots of RGW Swift fixes, RBD feature work > surrounding the new object map feature, more CephFS snapshot fixes, and a > few important CRUSH fixes. > --- > > Now you could just mount an RBD image (or run a VM) with BTRFS and have > snapshots again that are known to work. > > However going back to my first question up there, I have a feeling that a > functional Ceph cluster with at least 3 storage nodes might be both too > expensive while at the same time less performant than what you have now. > > A 2 node DRBD cluster might fit your needs better. > > Christian > -- > Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer > [email protected] Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications > http://www.gol.com/ > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
