Search Results

Search found 450 results on 18 pages for 'zfs'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 7/18 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Ubuntu 12.04 transmission-daemon and zfsonlinux: bad file descriptor and corrupt pieces

    - by Ivailo Karamanolev
    I'm running a Ubuntu 12.04 with zfsonlinux and transmission-daemon. The issues: sporadic Bad File Descriptor and Piece #xxx is corrupt errors. After I recheck the torrent, everything seems fine. That happens only when downloading: once it's in seeding mode. This only happens after the torrent client has been running for some time. I installed zfsonlinux from the offical stable ppa (https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable). I previously tried running transmission-daemon from the Ubuntu repository, but since I've switched to building the latest transmission from source with the latest libevent (all stable) - same thing. I've seen bug reports (https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/4147) for that issue, but none of them seem to have a solution. How can I fix these errors, or at least understand where they come from and what I can do to rectify the issue?

    Read the article

  • FreeNAS 8 and ext fs

    - by oraclecow
    i'm trying out freenas8 for my personal NAS, i have lots of data that was in an ubuntu server, but somehow i never got the file sharing right. on freenas things just worked. i installed on usb, tried sharing the windows disk, and i can see it on my windows 7 right away. my question is, is it ok to use ext4 fs from my ubuntu instalation ? i only saw zfs, ufs, ntfs, and ext2 option to import, i havent plugged in the disks yet, but im wondering the consequences, like if it asked to format like in windows to use. i can format the disks of course, but 5-6 TB of data juggling and reformatting is a lot of work, unnecessary work i think, does the zfs worth the trouble of formatting everything ? since i'm thinking to use it if i have to format it anyway and zfs looks more interesting than ext2.

    Read the article

  • FreeBSD 8.2 améliore le chiffrement des données et l'intégration du système de fichiers ZFS, FreeBSD 7.4 également disponible

    FreeBSD 8.2 améliore le chiffrement des données Et l'intégration du système de fichiers ZFS, FreeBSD 7.4 également disponible Mise à jour du 28/02/11 Deux nouvelles versions du système d'exploitation UNIX libre FreeBSD viennent de sortir. La première est FreeBSD 8.2. Un e version qui apporte deux nouveautés majeures*: l'amélioration de ZFS et de nouvelles capacités de chiffrement de disques. Pour mémoire, ZFS est un système de fichiers issu de feu OpenSolaris et aujourd'hui sous l'égide de Oracle. A noter, cependant, que ce système particulièrement puissant est ...

    Read the article

  • How to mount a LOFS in Solaris that doesn’t cross mountpoints

    - by jcea
    I need to access my "root" ZFS dataset to delete a file under "/var". But "/var" is overlayed by another ZFS dataset. Since these are system datasets I can't "umount" them while the machine is running. And I want to avoid to reboot the system in "failsafe" mode, since this is a production machine. Teorically ZFS would refuse to mount "/var" dataset over the underlying "/var", because it is not empty. But it works, possibly because they are system datasets mounted early in the boot process. But having the underlying "/var" not empty is preventing me to create an ABE (Alternate Boot Environment), so patching is risky, and I can't upgrade my system using Live Upgrade. The machine is remote. I have an IP KVM, but I rather prefer to avoid booting this machine in "failsafe" mode, if I can. I know there is a file in "/var/" because I can snapshot the "root" dataset and check it. But snapshots are read-only, so I can't get rid of the file. I tried "mkdir /tmp/zzz; mount -F lofs / /tmp/zzz", but when I go to "/tmp/zzz/var", I see the "/var" dataset, not the underlying "root" dataset. That is, the LOFS is crossing mountpoints. I would usually like it, but not this time!. Any suggestion, beside rebooting the machine in "failsafe" and mess with it thru the IP KVM?

    Read the article

  • Can I recover a zpool after it's been exported, given that devices have not been reallocated?

    - by cali-spc
    I had a zpool we'll call 'testpool'. testpool had 3 devices included in it, and a single zfs called 'test'. I needed to move 'test' to a new, smaller pool. I wanted to name the new pool the same name 'testpool'. Basically did the following. zfs send testpool@backup > /tmp/test-dump zpool export -f testpool zpool create -f testpool newdevice zfs receive -F testpool < /tmp/test-dump Unfortunately I found out that the testpool@backup snapshot was the wrong snapshot. Too old. I have yet to reallocate the three devices that were in the OLD testpool. (None of these 3 devices are 'newdevice', they are a separate 3.) Is there any way I can recover data in those devices? I'm thinking since I named the new, smaller pool the same as the old zpool, I'm pretty much SOL. But if not, that would be nice to know. Edit: More info I did a 'zpool import' and got this. bash-3.00# zpool import pool: testpool id: 14781458723915654709 state: ONLINE action: The pool can be imported using its name or numeric identifier. config: testpool ONLINE c5t8d0 ONLINE c5t9d0 ONLINE c5t10d0 ONLINE So I'm guessing I just need the syntax to import this zpool using its numeric identifier, while giving it a new name. S.

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on home NAS server

    - by user826955
    I currently have a NAS with a 2x2TB HDD 1x16GB SSD layout on a mini-itx atom board. The NAS is in a Lian Li PC-Q07 case. On this system I was running freebsd 8 with a gmirror raid 1 setup, which was enough for my needs. So far I was using the NAS for: Fileserver with AFP protocol (only mac clients used) SVN server hosting all my source trees of my projects JIRA (performance was okay-ish) Timemachine backup for the macs The power consumption was about 38W, although I did not put HDDs asleep when unused (I think this is not possible in a raid setup). I liked the NAS because: the performance was good through gigabit LAN (enough for my needs) power consumption was good its a pretty small case and fits in one of my cupboards I disliked the NAS a bit because: it was a bit noisy, the Q07 case vibrated a good amount because of the HDDs. I switched the NAS off every evening I do not have a real backup of the data on the NAS, only the internal raid 1 as safety. I really dont want to loose my source trees under no circumstances, so I would really be sleeping better if I knew I had regular backups somewhere. Recently, the board seemed to have died, I can't boot anymore. Thus, I was thinking about a redesign of my NAS (I still have to find out what parts are broken, I probably need to replace the mainboard and SSD. HDDs seem to be okay). First of all, I was wondering what other users have as backup for their NAS? Are you actually using a second NAS, and regularly copying over the data to have it safe? Or is there any better solution to this? I was thinking about getting a cheap NAS like the synology DS112j with only one disk, and use rsync or something similar to regularly copy data over to the second NAS (wake the second NAS upon start, shut it down after copy). Although this approach seems somewhat weird, It would have the benefit (?) that I could use a single disk instead of raid in the main NAS, and put the disk asleep when idle, and have the NAS running 24/7 with low energy consumption (I found no way to do this with a gmirror setup). Is there any recommended backup solution for a small NAS? Then I was thinking about a different raid setup. Since I have to buy a new mainboard as well as SSD, I might as well switch over to a i3 board with more ram, and also switch to ZFS. I am not familar with ZFS, I've never used it, but I read and hear much about it. Would it be viable to set up a ZFS storage with only 2 disks? Can I easily extend this storage with more disks, once I choose to add some? I could maybe get a new case like the Fractal Design Array R2 which has more 3,5" slots. I could as well get another 2 disks, but I would prefer sticking with the existing 2 for enegery/heat/noise reasons. Should I go for a ZFS storage or stick to my gmirror setup? I would also like to keep freebsd as operating system, and also I dont need any web gui or something (that is, I dont need/want to use FreeNAS or Openfiler etc). Does anyone maybe have a sample setup in use so I can compare energy consumption/noise/software setup? Any guidance towards the NAS of my dreams (silent, low energy, safe w/ backups) much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • join ZFS/Solaris to windows AD 2003/2008 domain

    - by user95587
    I have a client trying to join his newly updated ZFS/Solaris box to my Windows AD 2003/2008 domain. Here is the command he is using and the error he is getting; Console: root@xxx:/etc/inet# smbadm join -u USER DOMAIN After joining DOMAIN the smb service will be restarted automatically.Would you like to continue? [no]: yes Enter domain password: Joining DOMAIN ... this may take a minute ... failed to join DOMAIN: UNSUCCESSFUL Please refer to the system log for more information. From /var/adm/messages: Sep 22 10:12:00 xxx smbd[593]: [ID 702911 daemon.error] smbrdr_exchange[116]: failed (-3) Sep 22 10:12:01 xxx smbd[593]: [ID 232655 daemon.notice] ldap_modify: Insufficient access Sep 22 10:12:01 xxx smbd[593]: [ID 898201 daemon.notice] Unable to set the TRUSTED_FOR_DELEGATION userAccountControl flag on the machine account in Active Directory. Please refer to the Troubleshooting guide for more information. Sep 22 10:12:01 xxx smbd[593]: [ID 526780 daemon.notice] Failed to establish NETLOGON credential chain Sep 22 10:12:01 xxx smbd[593]: [ID 871254 daemon.error] smbd: failed joining DOMAIN (UNSUCCESSFUL)

    Read the article

  • How do you create large, growable, shared filesystems on Linux at AWS?

    - by Reece
    What are acceptable/reasonable/best ways to provide large, growable, shared storage at AWS, exposed as a single filesystem? We're currently making 1TB EBS volumes ~biweekly and NFS exporting with no_subtree_check and nohide. In this setup, distinct exports appear under a single mount on the client. This arrangement does not scale well. The options we've considered: LVM2 with ext4. resize2fs is too slow. Btrfs on Linux. not obviously ready for prime time yet. ZFS on Linux. not obviously ready for prime time yet (although LLNL uses it) ZFS on Solaris. future of this combo is uncertain (to me), and new OS in the mix glusterfs. heard mostly good but two scary (and maybe old?) stories. The ideal solution would provide sharing, a single fs view, easy expandability, snapshots, and replication. Thanks for sharing ideas and experience.

    Read the article

  • Solaris Administration Web GUI?

    - by Robert C
    I recently installed Solaris 11 x86 text install (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/downloads/index.html?ssSourceSiteId=ocomen) to be used as a file server running ZFS. I noticed that I'm given the bare minimum in terms of packages. Is there an official oracle web GUI for managing ZFS? I ran a netstat and it doesn't appear to have installed any webserver thats listening. I saw something from a couple years ago, but apparently it's not packaged or maintained anymore (https://blogs.oracle.com/talley/entry/manage_zfs_from_your_browser). I tried pkg install network-console, but it says that the package isn't available for my platform. Any ideas? I'd like to stick with Oracle Solaris instead of the open source alternatives, if possible.

    Read the article

  • Which is faster for read access on EC2; local drive or EBS?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    Which is faster for read access on an EC2 instance; the "local" drive or an attached EBS volume? I have some data that needs to be persisted so have placed this on an EBS volume. I'm using OpenSolaris, so this volume has been attached as a ZFS pool. However, I have a large chunk of EC2 disk space that's going to go unused, so I'm considering re-purposing this as a ZFS cache volume but I don't want to do this if the disk access is going to be slower than that of the EBS volume as it would potentially have a detrimental effect.

    Read the article

  • recommendations for efficient offsite remote backup solution of vm's

    - by senorsmile
    I am looking for recommendations for backing up my current 6 vm's(and soon to grow to up to 20). Currently I am running a two node proxmox cluster(which is a debian base using kvm for virtualization with a custom web front end to administer). I have two nearly identical boxes with amd phenom II x4's and asus motherboards. Each has 4 500 GB sata2 hdd's, 1 for the os and other data for the proxmox install, and 3 using mdadm+drbd+lvm to share the 1.5 TB's of storage between the two machines. I mount lvm images to kvm for all of the virtual machines. I currently have the ability to do live transfer from one machine to the other, typically within seconds(it takes about 2 minutes on the largest vm running win2008 with m$ sql server). I am using proxmox's built-in vzdump utility to take snapshots of the vm's and store those on an external harddrive on the network. I then have jungledisk service (using rackspace) to sync the vzdump folder for remote offsite backup. This is all fine and dandy, but it's not very scalable. For one, the backups themselves can take up to a few hours every night. With jungledisk's block level incremental transfers, the sync only transfers a small portion of the data offsite, but that still takes at least a half an hour. The much better solution would of course be something that allows me to instantly take the difference of two time points (say what was written from 6am to 7am), zip it, then send that difference file to the backup server which would instantly transfer to the remote storage on rackspace. I have looked a little into zfs and it's ability to do send/receive. That coupled with a pipe of the data in bzip or something would seem perfect. However, it seems that implementing a nexenta server with zfs would essentially require at least one or two more dedicated storage servers to serve iSCSI block volumes (via zvol's???) to the proxmox servers. I would prefer to keep the setup as minimal as possible (i.e. NOT having separate storage servers) if at all possible. I have also briefly read about zumastor. It looks like it could also do what I want, but it appears to have halted development in 2008. So, zfs, zumastor or other?

    Read the article

  • Which is faster for read access on EC2; local drive or EBS?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    Which is faster for read access on an EC2 instance; the "local" drive or an attached EBS volume? I have some data that needs to be persisted so have placed this on an EBS volume. I'm using OpenSolaris, so this volume has been attached as a ZFS pool. However, I have a large chunk of EC2 disk space that's going to go unused, so I'm considering re-purposing this as a ZFS cache volume but I don't want to do this if the disk access is going to be slower than that of the EBS volume as it would potentially have a detrimental effect.

    Read the article

  • Nexenta under KVM?

    - by Nick
    I have an Ubuntu Server running KVM. I'd like to get the benefits of ZFS so I was thinking of installing a virtual machine under KVM running Nexenta (or NexentaStor), allowing that virtual machine to have raw access to a couple of physical hard disks, and then having it share its file system with NFS so that Ubuntu can access it. I've never tried setting up KVM so that the virtual machine has access to physical drives. Does this sound feasible, and is there anything I need to watch out for? Has someone already documented something like this? Does Nexenta/ZFS function basically as well in the virtual environment as if they were running base bones? I can take a small performance hit, but I don't want it to not be as reliable because of the virtualization. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why did my zpool replace never finish and what should I do now?

    - by Josh
    I have a ZFS zpool with two disks in a mirror configuration, da0 and da1. da1 failed, and so I replaced it with da2 using zpool replace BearCow da1 da2 This ran for a few hours, during which zpool status showed that the array was being resilvered. When that finished, zpool status showed that the resilver was completed, but the array was still degraded... I tried a zpool scrub and a zpool clear, but the array still shows as degraded: [root@chef] ~# zpool status BearCow pool: BearCow state: DEGRADED scrub: scrub completed after 0h20m with 0 errors on Tue Oct 9 16:13:27 2012 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM BearCow DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror DEGRADED 0 0 0 da0 ONLINE 0 0 0 replacing DEGRADED 0 0 0 da1 OFFLINE 0 0 0 da2 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors I can't zpool replace BearCow da1 da2 anymore because da2 is already a member of BearCow... This is FreeBSD (FreeNAS) running ZFS pool version 15. How do I get my array to show as healthy again?

    Read the article

  • How to configure HA iSCSI for Solaris 10

    - by Noah
    BACKGROUND: We have a StarWind NAS that we are currently using for High Availability storage with our Windows network. Starwind has mirrored drives and multiple ip paths, that the Windows Server combines into one HA disk store. QUESTION: How do I accomplish the same thing under Solaris 10? I've looked at ZFS but to document seems to indicate that ZFS wants to do its own raid/mirroring. I can also attach via iSCSI from Solaris and am presented with both drives being served by the Starwind NS. So, how do I configure solaris so that disk M1 and M2 are considered as a single fault tolerant drive?

    Read the article

  • recommendations for efficient offsite remote backup solution of vm's

    - by senorsmile
    I am looking for recommendations for backing up my current 6 vm's(and soon to grow to up to 20). Currently I am running a two node proxmox cluster(which is a debian base using kvm for virtualization with a custom web front end to administer). I have two nearly identical boxes with amd phenom II x4's and asus motherboards. Each has 4 500 GB sata2 hdd's, 1 for the os and other data for the proxmox install, and 3 using mdadm+drbd+lvm to share the 1.5 TB's of storage between the two machines. I mount lvm images to kvm for all of the virtual machines. I currently have the ability to do live transfer from one machine to the other, typically within seconds(it takes about 2 minutes on the largest vm running win2008 with m$ sql server). I am using proxmox's built-in vzdump utility to take snapshots of the vm's and store those on an external harddrive on the network. I then have jungledisk service (using rackspace) to sync the vzdump folder for remote offsite backup. This is all fine and dandy, but it's not very scalable. For one, the backups themselves can take up to a few hours every night. With jungledisk's block level incremental transfers, the sync only transfers a small portion of the data offsite, but that still takes at least a half an hour. The much better solution would of course be something that allows me to instantly take the difference of two time points (say what was written from 6am to 7am), zip it, then send that difference file to the backup server which would instantly transfer to the remote storage on rackspace. I have looked a little into zfs and it's ability to do send/receive. That coupled with a pipe of the data in bzip or something would seem perfect. However, it seems that implementing a nexenta server with zfs would essentially require at least one or two more dedicated storage servers to serve iSCSI block volumes (via zvol's???) to the proxmox servers. I would prefer to keep the setup as minimal as possible (i.e. NOT having separate storage servers) if at all possible. I have also briefly read about zumastor. It looks like it could also do what I want, but it appears to have halted development in 2008. So, zfs, zumastor or other?

    Read the article

  • scsi and ata entries for same hard drive under /dev/disk/by-id

    - by John Dibling
    I am trying to set up a ZFS pool using 4 bare drives which I have attached to my Ubuntu system via a SATA hot swap backplane. These are Hitachi SATA drives. When I list the contents of /dev/disk/by-id, I see two entries for each drive: root@scorpius:/dev/disk/by-id# ls | grep Hitachi ata-Hitachi_HDS5C3030ALA630_MJ1323YNG0ZJ7C ata-Hitachi_HDS5C3030ALA630_MJ1323YNG1064C ata-Hitachi_HDS5C3030ALA630_MJ1323YNG190AC ata-Hitachi_HDS5C3030ALA630_MJ1323YNG1DGPC scsi-SATA_Hitachi_HDS5C30_MJ1323YNG0ZJ7C scsi-SATA_Hitachi_HDS5C30_MJ1323YNG1064C scsi-SATA_Hitachi_HDS5C30_MJ1323YNG190AC scsi-SATA_Hitachi_HDS5C30_MJ1323YNG1DGPC I know these are the same drives because I wrote down the serial numbers, and all the other drives in this system are either Seagate or WD. The serial number for the first one, for example, is YNG0ZJ7C. Why are there two entries here for each drive? More to the point, when I create my ZFS pool which one should I use; the scsi- one or the ata- one?

    Read the article

  • Managing disk in a VM

    - by dst
    I'm replacing my two old rack servers with a new one that has plenty of power to take over the functionality my current servers. The server is a 4U rack mount with 16 3.5" SAS drive bays, two 2.5" bays, a Xeon E3-1230v2 CPU and 32GB of ECC RAM. My issue is the following. I would like to have a FreeBSD file server with ZFS managing disks. However, I need other VMs for e.g. a shell/git server, mail server etc. I'm wondering how to deal with the following issues: I want ZFS to fully manage the disks, so I'm not using any hardware RAID. Should I pass the SAS controller directly to the FreeBSD system as passthrough PCI? I want to maximize the reliability of the setup. On what disks should I install the hypervsor and keep server system disks? For (2) I have the option of having a RAID setup on the SAS controller and using that as system disk to store the hypervisor as well as VM images. However, this makes PCI passthrough to the file server impossible. Another option is using the two 2.5" bays. In terms of reliability how are SSDs compared to e.g. WD RE4 disks? Would it make sense to have two SSDs in software RAID as boot disks for the hypervisor or should I just go with e.g. WD RE4 disks in a software RAID setup. I also need to think about where to store the mails for the mail server, but this could be done over NFS between the VMs. BTW, this is for home use, so the load is not really that big. What I'm looking for is best practices for splitting up a server.

    Read the article

  • Missing whole disk device in OpenSolaris

    - by Jeff Mc
    I have begun experimenting with Solaris and ZFS as a NAS. All was going very smoothly until I had a drive failure. When I replaced the drive, I no longer have a device file mapped to the whole disk. /dev/dsk/c7t3d0 does not exist but c7t2d0 and c7t4d0 both do. Also the sd@3,0:wd file under the /devices/ tree is non-existent. Do I have to prepare/partition the disk somehow to cause the whole disk device to exist? Here are a few outputs that might be useful. jeffmc@ats-ds2:/dev/dsk$ zpool status pool: datapool state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-2Q scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror-0 DEGRADED 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 jeffmc@ats-ds2:/dev/dsk$ zpool replace datapool c7t3d0 cannot open 'c7t3d0': no such device in /dev/dsk must be a full path or shorthand device name jeffmc@ats-ds2:/dev/dsk$ sudo format Searching for disks...done AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c7t0d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@0,0 1. c7t1d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@1,0 2. c7t2d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@2,0 3. c7t3d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@3,0 4. c7t4d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@4,0 5. c7t5d0 /pci@0,0/pci8086,3599@6/pci8086,330@0/pci1014,2cc@7,1/sd@5,0

    Read the article

  • file system that allow to specify different RAID level per directory and change it afterward

    - by Adam Ryczkowski
    I have 5 hard drives, where I want to keep my data. Some of my files are more important, and some of them are less. So some of them I wish to put on RAID-6, and for some it RAID-5 is sufficient. It is difficult to predict at the moment of creation of the arrays how much space of each type to declare. What I would do if I didn't hear about zfs, is partition the hard drives into identical 100GB partitions, and as my needs grow, assemble those partitions into md devices using linux-raid. Then, I'd combine those devices using lvm into logical volumes where I'd put my data. So when I'd need more space of e.g. RAID-6, I'd take 100GB partition from each hard drive and assemble them into another RAID-6 md device and would use it as physical storage for the logical volume group dedicated for RAID-6 data. Then I could grow the file system on this logical volume. On top of RAID-6 and RAID-5 Volume Groups (managed by lvm) would reside completely independent file systems, which I'd later merge with multiple mount --bind into a single directory structure that would reflect the logical structure of data rather that of the storage. But now, when I heard about the ZFS with all the performance, data-healing and compression capabilities I cannot stop thinking if it can help me. If so, what do you think would be the best setup?

    Read the article

  • 150 TB and growing, but how to grow?

    - by seandavi
    My group currently has two largish storage servers, both NAS running debian linux. The first is an all-in-one 24-disk (SATA) server that is several years old. We have two hardware RAIDS set up on it with LVM over those. The second server is 64 disks divided over 4 enclosures, each a hardware RAID 6, connected via external SAS. We use XFS with LVM over that to create 100TB useable storage. All of this works pretty well, but we are outgrowing these systems. Having build two such servers and still growing, we want to build something that allows us more flexibility in terms of future growth, backup options, that behaves better under disk failure (checking the larger filesystem can take a day or more), and can stand up in a heavily concurrent environment (think small computer cluster). We do not have system administration support, so we administer all of this ourselves (we are a genomics lab). So, what we seek is a relatively low-cost, acceptable performance storage solution that will allow future growth and flexible configuration (think ZFS with different pools having different operating characteristics). We are probably outside the realm of a single NAS. We have been thinking about a combination of ZFS (on openindiana, for example) or btrfs per server with glusterfs running on top of that if we do it ourselves. What we are weighing that against is simply biting the bullet and investing in Isilon or 3Par storage solutions. Any suggestions or experiences are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to make a redundant desktop system with daily snapshots? (Is btrfs ready for use?)

    - by TestUser16418
    I want to configure a desktop system in which the home filesystem would be redundant (e.g. RAID-1), and would have weekly snapshots taken. I've already done this with ZFS, the snapshot system is wonderful, and with send/recv you can easily create backups on external media. Unfortunately, at that point, I want GNU+Linux and not FreeBSD or Solaris, so I'm looking for suggestions for good alternatives. I reckon that my alternatives are: btrfs - it seems to be exactly what I need, it has snapshots and commands that allow you to easily replicate zfs send. Yet all documentation mentions that it's still experimental. I can't seem to find any actual reports on its reliability or usability issues. Can you point me to any information on that issue that could clarify whether it would be a possible choice? I have a large preference for this option, mostly because I don't want to reformat the drives when btrfs becomes ready, but I there's no information on whether it's usable at all, whether it's a silly idea to use it, etc. The question that I cannot get the answer to is what does "experimental" mean. lvm snapshots and ext4 - preferably not, since it can consume an awful amount of space when new files are created. Creating 200 GB files requres 200 GB free space and 200 GB additionally for snapshots. I also have found it unreliable -- failed metadata rewrite results in an unreadable PV. I'm wondering how btrfs would compare here. A single filesystem (ext4) on a RAID-1 array with custom COW snapshots with hardlinks (like cp -al). That's my current preference if I can't use btrfs. So how experimental btrfs is, which should I choose, and do I have any other options? What if I don't keep external incremental backups, would that affect my choice?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >