Hello,
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 14:23:05 +0200 Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> Le Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:37:42 +0900
> Christian Balzer écrivait:
>
> > And once again, the deafening silence shall be broken by replying to
> > myself.
>
> Don't be bitter :)
>
It's therapeutic. ^o^
> > The below is all on D
Il 06-09-2017 16:22 David Bruzos ha scritto:
I've used DRBD devices on top of ZFS zvols for years now and have been
very satisfied with the performance and possibilities that that
configuration allows for. I use DRBD 8.x on ZFS latest mainly on Xen
hypervisors running a mix a Linux and Windows V
Il 06-09-2017 16:03 Yannis Milios ha scritto:
...I mean by cloning it first, since snapshot does not appear as
blockdev to the system but the clone does.
Hi, this is incorrect: ZVOL snapshots surely can appear as regular block
devices. You simply need to set the "snapdev=visible" property.
R
I've used DRBD devices on top of ZFS zvols for years now and have been very
satisfied with the performance and possibilities that that configuration allows
for. I use DRBD 8.x on ZFS latest mainly on Xen hypervisors running a mix a
Linux and Windows VMs with both SSD and mechanical drives. I'v
...I mean by cloning it first, since snapshot does not appear as blockdev
to the system but the clone does.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Yannis Milios
wrote:
> Even in that case I would prefer to assemble a new DRBD device ontop of
> the ZVOL snapshot and then mount the DRBD device instead :)
Even in that case I would prefer to assemble a new DRBD device ontop of the
ZVOL snapshot and then mount the DRBD device instead :)
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Gionatan Danti wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 15:31, Yannis Milios wrote:
>
>> If your topology is like the following: HDD -> ZFS (ZVOL) ->
On 06/09/2017 15:31, Yannis Milios wrote:
If your topology is like the following: HDD -> ZFS (ZVOL) -> DRBD ->
XFS then I believe it should make sense to always mount at the DRBD
level and not at the ZVOL level which happens to be the underlying
blockdev for DRBD.
Sure! Directly mounting the D
Hi,
On 06/09/2017 13:28, Jan Schermer wrote:
Not sure you can mount snapshot (I always create a clone).
the only difference is that snapshots are read-only, while clones are
read-write. This is why I used the "-o ro,norecovery" option while
mounting XFS.
However I never saw anything about
If your topology is like the following: HDD -> ZFS (ZVOL) -> DRBD -> XFS
then I believe it should make sense to always mount at the DRBD level and
not at the ZVOL level which happens to be the underlying blockdev for DRBD.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Jan Schermer wrote:
> Not sure you can
Le Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:37:42 +0900
Christian Balzer écrivait:
> And once again, the deafening silence shall be broken by replying to
> myself.
Don't be bitter :)
> The below is all on Debian Stretch with a 4.11 kernel.
>
> I tested bcache w/o DRBD initially and the performance as well as
> def
Not sure you can mount snapshot (I always create a clone).
However I never saw anything about “drbd” filesystem - what distribution is
this? Apparently it tries to be too clever…
Try creating a clone and mounting it instead, it’s safer anyway (saw bug in
issue tracker that ZFS panics if you try t
On 19/08/2017 10:24, Yannis Milios wrote:
Option (b) seems more suitable for a 2 node drbd8 cluster in a
primary/secondary setup. Haven't tried it so I cannot tell if there are
any clurpits. My only concern in such setup would be if drbd corrupts
silently the data on the lower level and zfs is
Hi all,
I am trying to setup a 3-node cluster with DRBD9. The nodes are VMs on
KVM with CentOS 7.2. I followed manual from
http://docs.linbit.com/docs/users-guide-9.0/#ch-admin-drbdmanage to
initialize the cluster and add nodes to it. I don't have password-less
SSH authentication between the
13 matches
Mail list logo
