On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM, River Tarnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ian Collins: >> I doubt zfs receive would be able to keep pace with any non-trivial update >> rate. > > one could consider this a bug in zfs receive :) > >> Mirroring iSCSI or a dedicated HA tool would be a better solution. > > i'm not sure how to apply iSCSI here; the pool needs to be mounted at least > read-only on both hosts at the same time. (also suggested was AVS, which > doesn't allow keeping the pool mounted on the slave.) at least Solaris > Cluster, from what i've seen, doesn't allow this either; the failover is > handled by importing the pool during failover. > > - river. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iD8DBQFJG2ltIXd7fCuc5vIRAv5PAJ4lrVLcWuQlJkY05fxCYkLn8kgtxQCgo/CX > Ae17uVMuX1FABt73hmeULmM= > =OZZa > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
It sounds like you need either a true clustering file system or to draw back your plans to see changes read-only instantly on the secondary node. What kind of link do you plan between these nodes? Would the link keep up with non-trivial updates? -- Brent Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
