Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Il 18-08-2017 17:09 Yannis Milios ha scritto: > Personally I'm using option (a) on a 3 node proxmox cluster and drbd9. > Replica count per VM is 2 and all 3 nodes act as both drbd control > volumes and satellite nodes.I can live migrate VM between all nodes > and snapshot them by using drbdmanage utility (which is using zfs > snapshot+clones). Hi Yannis, thank you for describing your setup! > 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 not aware of > that. I think that such a silent corruption will be better caught by ZFS when it happens at the lower layer (ie: the ZOOL, at VDEV level) rather than when it happens at upper layers (ie: DRBD on ZVOL). This is the stronger argument why on the ZFS list I was adviced to use DRBD on RAW device + ZFS on higher layer. From what I read on this list, however, basically no-one is using ZFS over DRBD over RAW disks, so I am somewhat worried about some potential, hidden pitfalls. > Also, if you are *not* going to use live migration, and you can > afford loosing some seconds of data on the secondary node in favor of > better performance on the primary node, then you could consider using > protocol A instead of C for the replication link. Sure. On other installation, I am using protocol B with great success. Thanks. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8