When using AVS's "Async replication with memory queue", am I guaranteed a
consistent ZFS on the distant end?
The assumed failure case is that the replication broke, and now I'm trying to
promote the secondary replicate with what might be stale data. Recognizing in
advance that some of the data
>
> > I'm guessing one of the reasons you wanted a
> non-RAID controller with
> > a write cache was so that if the controller failed,
> and the exact same
> > model wasn't available to replace it, most of your
> pool would still be
> > readable with any random controller, modulo risk of
> corrupti
Just to clarify a few items... consider a setup where we desire to use AVS to
replicate the ZFS pool on a 4 drive server to like hardware. The 4 drives are
setup as RaidZ.
If we lose a drive (say #2) in the primary server, RaidZ will take over, and
our data will still be "available" but the ar
Anyone know of a SATA and/or SAS HBA with battery backed write cache?
Seems like using a full-blown RAID controller and exporting each individual
drive back to ZFS as a single LUN is a waste of power and $$$. Looking for any
thoughts or ideas.
Thanks.
-Matt
--
This message posted from opensol
