> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov > > 2) In particular, if I wanted to make a mirror of raidzN's, > can it be done in one ZFS pool, or would I have to play > with iSCSI and ZVOLs?
Although you can probably do something like this (which might give you some problems in terms of mount order, etc) it's probably not a great idea. One part of the system will be optimizing for mirrored disks, another optimizing for a raidz. Block patterns may not (probably won't) align, possibly resulting in some performance issues... You'll be double-checksumming... If you want to mirror raidz devices, why don't you just go with a mirror and no raidz? The mirror performs better. The only reason I can think of to do what you're saying is if you want more redundancy than a 2-way mirror, but not as much as a 3-way mirror. When they designed zfs, they weren't designing for you to have THAT level of redundancy precision. The more you stray off the beaten path, the more you discover the things other people haven't discovered. My advice would be to stick with the 2-way or 3-way mirror. Don't trick the system into using multi-layered vdev's when it's not intended to be used that way. Not saying you can't - just that it's not intended, and hence, not well tested and not recommended. > 3) If I have two separate ZFS nodes with local storage, > intended for failure-tolerant HA, which approach is better - > to create a mirror over ZVOLs (importing a remote ZVOL over > iSCSI and loopback), or to replicate using frequent snapshots > and zfs send/zfs recv? Each way has some pros & cons. If you attach the remote zvol to a mirror, it will start resilvering (latency intensive) and suddenly all your present disk activities will be bottlenecked to remote system speeds. Maybe not an issue if you're connecting over infiniband or something super fast like it. The pro of doing things this way is - if the local side of the mirror dies for some reason, the storage doesn't go down. So you're giving up performance in order to gain reliability. If you use zfs send/receive, your local system will still be able to perform at local system speeds while it's sending an optimized network data stream over to the other side. The downside is if the local storage system fails, your storage system goes down, and you will only have the most recently sent snapshot over on the remote side, so you could potentially lose some granularity in the most recent data. You're gaining performance at the expense of risk to your most recent data. Actually - There's a situation where the zfs send is actually MORE reliable too. Although not very common, it certainly CAN happen, and HAS happened, that live replicating systems (such as remotely attached mirror) both get destroyed at the same time. Whatever destroys the primary storage pool (such as a sysadmin accidentally destroying the wrong zpool) also simultaneously destroys the backup data pool. So the added layer of separation by using the zfs send might be desired. Also, if you mirror the remote zvol, you'll be constrained to using the same size/geometry/configuration of storage on the local and remote sides. Usually, when I build systems, I use a better class of hardware on the primary server, and a cheaper class of hardware on the backup server. Say... Use SAS on the primary and SATA on the backup. And use the SSD ZIL on the primary, but simply disable ZIL on the backup server. And use twice as many half-the-size disks on the primary, while using half-as-many twice-the-size disks on the backup. Use mirror on the primary, use raidz2 on the backup. Enable compression on the backup but no compression on the primary. Etc. (Actually, in most cases, you *gain* performance by adding compression to both, depending on your data.) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss