What's an effective offsite backup strategy for a ZFS mirrored pool?
I use a ZFS pool consisting of two mirrored disks. To get offsite backups going, I've purchased two more disks.
My initial plan was to create the offsite backup by attaching a third disk to the mirror, waiting for ZFS to resilver, then detach the drive and carry it offsite. This works well enough, but I've been surprised that it appears to perform a full resilver every time a disk is attached (I'd read, and possibly misunderstood, that each attach would result in an incremental or delta resilver). This results in backups taking longer than is acceptable.
My requirements are to have an offsite copy of my zpool and all its snapshots that I can rotate daily. This means the resilvering needs to take at most 24 hours--currently it's close to that, but our plans of growing our pool will push it beyond that timeframe.
How can I keep offsite backups that don't require a full resilvering operation? Should I be using a different filesystem on my backup drives (e.g. exporting an image rather than having them be part of the ZFS pool)? Should I have the backups in a separate pool and send new snapshots to it as they are created?
backup zfs
add a comment |
I use a ZFS pool consisting of two mirrored disks. To get offsite backups going, I've purchased two more disks.
My initial plan was to create the offsite backup by attaching a third disk to the mirror, waiting for ZFS to resilver, then detach the drive and carry it offsite. This works well enough, but I've been surprised that it appears to perform a full resilver every time a disk is attached (I'd read, and possibly misunderstood, that each attach would result in an incremental or delta resilver). This results in backups taking longer than is acceptable.
My requirements are to have an offsite copy of my zpool and all its snapshots that I can rotate daily. This means the resilvering needs to take at most 24 hours--currently it's close to that, but our plans of growing our pool will push it beyond that timeframe.
How can I keep offsite backups that don't require a full resilvering operation? Should I be using a different filesystem on my backup drives (e.g. exporting an image rather than having them be part of the ZFS pool)? Should I have the backups in a separate pool and send new snapshots to it as they are created?
backup zfs
My current strategy is the multiple pool method, with zfs send and receive to keep snapshots synced up. Would love to hear if you've found an argument against this or a better option.
– so12311
Nov 17 '14 at 13:32
add a comment |
I use a ZFS pool consisting of two mirrored disks. To get offsite backups going, I've purchased two more disks.
My initial plan was to create the offsite backup by attaching a third disk to the mirror, waiting for ZFS to resilver, then detach the drive and carry it offsite. This works well enough, but I've been surprised that it appears to perform a full resilver every time a disk is attached (I'd read, and possibly misunderstood, that each attach would result in an incremental or delta resilver). This results in backups taking longer than is acceptable.
My requirements are to have an offsite copy of my zpool and all its snapshots that I can rotate daily. This means the resilvering needs to take at most 24 hours--currently it's close to that, but our plans of growing our pool will push it beyond that timeframe.
How can I keep offsite backups that don't require a full resilvering operation? Should I be using a different filesystem on my backup drives (e.g. exporting an image rather than having them be part of the ZFS pool)? Should I have the backups in a separate pool and send new snapshots to it as they are created?
backup zfs
I use a ZFS pool consisting of two mirrored disks. To get offsite backups going, I've purchased two more disks.
My initial plan was to create the offsite backup by attaching a third disk to the mirror, waiting for ZFS to resilver, then detach the drive and carry it offsite. This works well enough, but I've been surprised that it appears to perform a full resilver every time a disk is attached (I'd read, and possibly misunderstood, that each attach would result in an incremental or delta resilver). This results in backups taking longer than is acceptable.
My requirements are to have an offsite copy of my zpool and all its snapshots that I can rotate daily. This means the resilvering needs to take at most 24 hours--currently it's close to that, but our plans of growing our pool will push it beyond that timeframe.
How can I keep offsite backups that don't require a full resilvering operation? Should I be using a different filesystem on my backup drives (e.g. exporting an image rather than having them be part of the ZFS pool)? Should I have the backups in a separate pool and send new snapshots to it as they are created?
backup zfs
backup zfs
edited Jan 12 '18 at 22:56
Jeff Schaller
39.3k1054125
39.3k1054125
asked Oct 29 '14 at 18:22
STWSTW
76721117
76721117
My current strategy is the multiple pool method, with zfs send and receive to keep snapshots synced up. Would love to hear if you've found an argument against this or a better option.
– so12311
Nov 17 '14 at 13:32
add a comment |
My current strategy is the multiple pool method, with zfs send and receive to keep snapshots synced up. Would love to hear if you've found an argument against this or a better option.
– so12311
Nov 17 '14 at 13:32
My current strategy is the multiple pool method, with zfs send and receive to keep snapshots synced up. Would love to hear if you've found an argument against this or a better option.
– so12311
Nov 17 '14 at 13:32
My current strategy is the multiple pool method, with zfs send and receive to keep snapshots synced up. Would love to hear if you've found an argument against this or a better option.
– so12311
Nov 17 '14 at 13:32
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
After much tinkering and experimentation I've found a solution, albeit with a fairly large tradeoff.
First off, the options I had to rule out:
Having a second offsite ZFS server with a mirrored pool wasn't an option due to cost. Had it been an option this would by far have been the best approach, utilizing ZFS send / receive to ship snapshots to the remote pool.
Having a second onsite ZFS mirrored pool, which I could remove disks from to take home. This is more feasible than the first option, but I would need the second pool to always have two disks onsite (or to use two data-copies on a single onsite disk). At present I have four disks, and no more space for a fifth in the server. This would be a fair approach but still not ideal.
Using ZFS attach and detach to rotate the backup disk into and out of the mirrored pool. This works well, but has to perform a full resilver every time the disk is added. This takes unacceptably long, and so I couldn't rely on this.
My solution is similar to using attach
and detach
, however it uses online
and offline
. This has the advantage of performing a delta resilvering versus a full resilvering, but the drawback that the pool always reports a DEGRADED
state (the pool always has two disks; the rotating offsite disks are marked offline
when they are in remote storage and resilver and then come online when they are onsite).
So, a quick recap and overview of my setup:
I have one ZFS server and four identical disks. ZFS is setup to use a mirrored pool. Two of the four disks are permanent members of this pool. The other two disks rotate; one is always in offsite storage, the other is part of the pool to act as a ready-to-go backup.
When it comes time to rotate the backups:
I wait for a
zfs scrub
to complete to reasonably assure the backup disk is error freeI
zfs offline
the disk which will be taken remote. After its offline'd Ihdparm -Y /dev/id
to spin it down. After a minute I partially remove the disk sled (just enough to ensure its lost power) and then give it another minute before fully pulling the drive to guarantee it has stopped spinning. The disk goes in a static bag and then a protective case and goes offsite.I bring in the other offsite disk. It gets installed in the hotswap tray and spins up. I use
zfs online
to restore the disk to the pool and kick off a partial resilvering to make it concurrent.
This system guarantees that at any given time I have two ONLINE
mirror disks and one OFFLINE
remote disk (which has been scrubbed). The fourth disk is either being resilvered or online, which has the benefit that in case a running drive fails it's probably the pool will still consistent of two online disks.
It's worked well for the past couple weeks, but I'd still consider this a hackish approach. I'll follow up if I run into any major issues.
Update: After running with this for a couple months I've found that in my real-world use the resilvering is taking the same time for either detach/attach and offline/online. In my testing I don't think I was running a scrub--my hunch is that if a drive is offline for a scrub then it requires a full resilver.
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
1
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
|
show 5 more comments
Why not zfs send your snapshots to a remote ZFS machine? I use a simple bash script for this:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
# ZFS Snapshot BASH script by Shawn Westerhoff
# Updated 1/14/2014
### DATE VARIABLES
# D = Today's date
# D1 = Yesterday's date
# D# = Today less # days date
Y=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D=$(date +%m-%d-%Y)
D1=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D10=$(date -v-10d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D20=$(date -v-20d '+%m-%d-%Y')
# Step 1: Make the snapshots
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs snapshot $i@$D
fi
done
# Step 2: Send the snapshots to backup ZFS sever
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
zfs send -i $i@$D1 $i@$D | ssh -c arcfour root@10.10.10.10 zfs recv $i
done
# Step 3: Destroy snapshots that are 20 days old
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs destroy $i@$D20
fi
done
add a comment |
I created a tool called snapdump that let's you create incremental dumps of your zfs datasets to a foreign (non zfs) file system.
Snapdump also supports restoring an incremental snapshot chain with a single command.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f164864%2fwhats-an-effective-offsite-backup-strategy-for-a-zfs-mirrored-pool%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
After much tinkering and experimentation I've found a solution, albeit with a fairly large tradeoff.
First off, the options I had to rule out:
Having a second offsite ZFS server with a mirrored pool wasn't an option due to cost. Had it been an option this would by far have been the best approach, utilizing ZFS send / receive to ship snapshots to the remote pool.
Having a second onsite ZFS mirrored pool, which I could remove disks from to take home. This is more feasible than the first option, but I would need the second pool to always have two disks onsite (or to use two data-copies on a single onsite disk). At present I have four disks, and no more space for a fifth in the server. This would be a fair approach but still not ideal.
Using ZFS attach and detach to rotate the backup disk into and out of the mirrored pool. This works well, but has to perform a full resilver every time the disk is added. This takes unacceptably long, and so I couldn't rely on this.
My solution is similar to using attach
and detach
, however it uses online
and offline
. This has the advantage of performing a delta resilvering versus a full resilvering, but the drawback that the pool always reports a DEGRADED
state (the pool always has two disks; the rotating offsite disks are marked offline
when they are in remote storage and resilver and then come online when they are onsite).
So, a quick recap and overview of my setup:
I have one ZFS server and four identical disks. ZFS is setup to use a mirrored pool. Two of the four disks are permanent members of this pool. The other two disks rotate; one is always in offsite storage, the other is part of the pool to act as a ready-to-go backup.
When it comes time to rotate the backups:
I wait for a
zfs scrub
to complete to reasonably assure the backup disk is error freeI
zfs offline
the disk which will be taken remote. After its offline'd Ihdparm -Y /dev/id
to spin it down. After a minute I partially remove the disk sled (just enough to ensure its lost power) and then give it another minute before fully pulling the drive to guarantee it has stopped spinning. The disk goes in a static bag and then a protective case and goes offsite.I bring in the other offsite disk. It gets installed in the hotswap tray and spins up. I use
zfs online
to restore the disk to the pool and kick off a partial resilvering to make it concurrent.
This system guarantees that at any given time I have two ONLINE
mirror disks and one OFFLINE
remote disk (which has been scrubbed). The fourth disk is either being resilvered or online, which has the benefit that in case a running drive fails it's probably the pool will still consistent of two online disks.
It's worked well for the past couple weeks, but I'd still consider this a hackish approach. I'll follow up if I run into any major issues.
Update: After running with this for a couple months I've found that in my real-world use the resilvering is taking the same time for either detach/attach and offline/online. In my testing I don't think I was running a scrub--my hunch is that if a drive is offline for a scrub then it requires a full resilver.
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
1
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
|
show 5 more comments
After much tinkering and experimentation I've found a solution, albeit with a fairly large tradeoff.
First off, the options I had to rule out:
Having a second offsite ZFS server with a mirrored pool wasn't an option due to cost. Had it been an option this would by far have been the best approach, utilizing ZFS send / receive to ship snapshots to the remote pool.
Having a second onsite ZFS mirrored pool, which I could remove disks from to take home. This is more feasible than the first option, but I would need the second pool to always have two disks onsite (or to use two data-copies on a single onsite disk). At present I have four disks, and no more space for a fifth in the server. This would be a fair approach but still not ideal.
Using ZFS attach and detach to rotate the backup disk into and out of the mirrored pool. This works well, but has to perform a full resilver every time the disk is added. This takes unacceptably long, and so I couldn't rely on this.
My solution is similar to using attach
and detach
, however it uses online
and offline
. This has the advantage of performing a delta resilvering versus a full resilvering, but the drawback that the pool always reports a DEGRADED
state (the pool always has two disks; the rotating offsite disks are marked offline
when they are in remote storage and resilver and then come online when they are onsite).
So, a quick recap and overview of my setup:
I have one ZFS server and four identical disks. ZFS is setup to use a mirrored pool. Two of the four disks are permanent members of this pool. The other two disks rotate; one is always in offsite storage, the other is part of the pool to act as a ready-to-go backup.
When it comes time to rotate the backups:
I wait for a
zfs scrub
to complete to reasonably assure the backup disk is error freeI
zfs offline
the disk which will be taken remote. After its offline'd Ihdparm -Y /dev/id
to spin it down. After a minute I partially remove the disk sled (just enough to ensure its lost power) and then give it another minute before fully pulling the drive to guarantee it has stopped spinning. The disk goes in a static bag and then a protective case and goes offsite.I bring in the other offsite disk. It gets installed in the hotswap tray and spins up. I use
zfs online
to restore the disk to the pool and kick off a partial resilvering to make it concurrent.
This system guarantees that at any given time I have two ONLINE
mirror disks and one OFFLINE
remote disk (which has been scrubbed). The fourth disk is either being resilvered or online, which has the benefit that in case a running drive fails it's probably the pool will still consistent of two online disks.
It's worked well for the past couple weeks, but I'd still consider this a hackish approach. I'll follow up if I run into any major issues.
Update: After running with this for a couple months I've found that in my real-world use the resilvering is taking the same time for either detach/attach and offline/online. In my testing I don't think I was running a scrub--my hunch is that if a drive is offline for a scrub then it requires a full resilver.
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
1
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
|
show 5 more comments
After much tinkering and experimentation I've found a solution, albeit with a fairly large tradeoff.
First off, the options I had to rule out:
Having a second offsite ZFS server with a mirrored pool wasn't an option due to cost. Had it been an option this would by far have been the best approach, utilizing ZFS send / receive to ship snapshots to the remote pool.
Having a second onsite ZFS mirrored pool, which I could remove disks from to take home. This is more feasible than the first option, but I would need the second pool to always have two disks onsite (or to use two data-copies on a single onsite disk). At present I have four disks, and no more space for a fifth in the server. This would be a fair approach but still not ideal.
Using ZFS attach and detach to rotate the backup disk into and out of the mirrored pool. This works well, but has to perform a full resilver every time the disk is added. This takes unacceptably long, and so I couldn't rely on this.
My solution is similar to using attach
and detach
, however it uses online
and offline
. This has the advantage of performing a delta resilvering versus a full resilvering, but the drawback that the pool always reports a DEGRADED
state (the pool always has two disks; the rotating offsite disks are marked offline
when they are in remote storage and resilver and then come online when they are onsite).
So, a quick recap and overview of my setup:
I have one ZFS server and four identical disks. ZFS is setup to use a mirrored pool. Two of the four disks are permanent members of this pool. The other two disks rotate; one is always in offsite storage, the other is part of the pool to act as a ready-to-go backup.
When it comes time to rotate the backups:
I wait for a
zfs scrub
to complete to reasonably assure the backup disk is error freeI
zfs offline
the disk which will be taken remote. After its offline'd Ihdparm -Y /dev/id
to spin it down. After a minute I partially remove the disk sled (just enough to ensure its lost power) and then give it another minute before fully pulling the drive to guarantee it has stopped spinning. The disk goes in a static bag and then a protective case and goes offsite.I bring in the other offsite disk. It gets installed in the hotswap tray and spins up. I use
zfs online
to restore the disk to the pool and kick off a partial resilvering to make it concurrent.
This system guarantees that at any given time I have two ONLINE
mirror disks and one OFFLINE
remote disk (which has been scrubbed). The fourth disk is either being resilvered or online, which has the benefit that in case a running drive fails it's probably the pool will still consistent of two online disks.
It's worked well for the past couple weeks, but I'd still consider this a hackish approach. I'll follow up if I run into any major issues.
Update: After running with this for a couple months I've found that in my real-world use the resilvering is taking the same time for either detach/attach and offline/online. In my testing I don't think I was running a scrub--my hunch is that if a drive is offline for a scrub then it requires a full resilver.
After much tinkering and experimentation I've found a solution, albeit with a fairly large tradeoff.
First off, the options I had to rule out:
Having a second offsite ZFS server with a mirrored pool wasn't an option due to cost. Had it been an option this would by far have been the best approach, utilizing ZFS send / receive to ship snapshots to the remote pool.
Having a second onsite ZFS mirrored pool, which I could remove disks from to take home. This is more feasible than the first option, but I would need the second pool to always have two disks onsite (or to use two data-copies on a single onsite disk). At present I have four disks, and no more space for a fifth in the server. This would be a fair approach but still not ideal.
Using ZFS attach and detach to rotate the backup disk into and out of the mirrored pool. This works well, but has to perform a full resilver every time the disk is added. This takes unacceptably long, and so I couldn't rely on this.
My solution is similar to using attach
and detach
, however it uses online
and offline
. This has the advantage of performing a delta resilvering versus a full resilvering, but the drawback that the pool always reports a DEGRADED
state (the pool always has two disks; the rotating offsite disks are marked offline
when they are in remote storage and resilver and then come online when they are onsite).
So, a quick recap and overview of my setup:
I have one ZFS server and four identical disks. ZFS is setup to use a mirrored pool. Two of the four disks are permanent members of this pool. The other two disks rotate; one is always in offsite storage, the other is part of the pool to act as a ready-to-go backup.
When it comes time to rotate the backups:
I wait for a
zfs scrub
to complete to reasonably assure the backup disk is error freeI
zfs offline
the disk which will be taken remote. After its offline'd Ihdparm -Y /dev/id
to spin it down. After a minute I partially remove the disk sled (just enough to ensure its lost power) and then give it another minute before fully pulling the drive to guarantee it has stopped spinning. The disk goes in a static bag and then a protective case and goes offsite.I bring in the other offsite disk. It gets installed in the hotswap tray and spins up. I use
zfs online
to restore the disk to the pool and kick off a partial resilvering to make it concurrent.
This system guarantees that at any given time I have two ONLINE
mirror disks and one OFFLINE
remote disk (which has been scrubbed). The fourth disk is either being resilvered or online, which has the benefit that in case a running drive fails it's probably the pool will still consistent of two online disks.
It's worked well for the past couple weeks, but I'd still consider this a hackish approach. I'll follow up if I run into any major issues.
Update: After running with this for a couple months I've found that in my real-world use the resilvering is taking the same time for either detach/attach and offline/online. In my testing I don't think I was running a scrub--my hunch is that if a drive is offline for a scrub then it requires a full resilver.
edited Jan 8 '15 at 21:45
answered Nov 17 '14 at 17:23
STWSTW
76721117
76721117
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
1
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
|
show 5 more comments
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
1
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
Will this definitely not work with just three devices instead of four? The Oracle Solaris ZFS Administration Guide states that a mirror pool is faulted "If all components of a mirror are removed" [emphasis mine], which would seem to imply that a fourth drive isn't strictly necessary.
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:35
1
1
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
By three devices do you mean two disks that are always in the pool and one that is occasionally offsite, or one disk that's always in the pool and two that rotate offsite? With the second option I would expect data loss if the pool encounters bad data while there is only one fully online disk (when the 2nd disk is either being rotated or not yet fully resilvered). My two-cents is to always ensure your mirrored pool has two full-time online disks.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 19:50
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I meant the second option you mention. With that option, how likely is bad data while only one disk is online? The partial/incremental resilvering should be relatively quick, right? And even if there was bad data, shouldn't you be able to recover from the second drive? Or recover from the third drive, worst case? [Obviously there are scenarios where recovery isn't possible; but that's true even with four drives; or any number actually.]
– Kenny Evitt
Jan 8 '15 at 19:56
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
I'd stick to always having two online mirrored disks, with a third and fourth used to rotate backups. Any time that you have just one online disk in a mirror is a time that you're vulnerable--and even with my approach there is the risk that the offsite backup disk could develop integrity issues and not be 100% recoverable (ideally there would be two mirrored disks offsite at any time, so that the integrity of the two could be compared).
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:00
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
To sum it up, ZFS is all about avoiding a single copy of data (or at least having parity, allowing reconstruction of bad data). When you have only one online disk or one copy of backup data it is at risk of data loss.
– STW
Jan 8 '15 at 20:02
|
show 5 more comments
Why not zfs send your snapshots to a remote ZFS machine? I use a simple bash script for this:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
# ZFS Snapshot BASH script by Shawn Westerhoff
# Updated 1/14/2014
### DATE VARIABLES
# D = Today's date
# D1 = Yesterday's date
# D# = Today less # days date
Y=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D=$(date +%m-%d-%Y)
D1=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D10=$(date -v-10d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D20=$(date -v-20d '+%m-%d-%Y')
# Step 1: Make the snapshots
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs snapshot $i@$D
fi
done
# Step 2: Send the snapshots to backup ZFS sever
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
zfs send -i $i@$D1 $i@$D | ssh -c arcfour root@10.10.10.10 zfs recv $i
done
# Step 3: Destroy snapshots that are 20 days old
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs destroy $i@$D20
fi
done
add a comment |
Why not zfs send your snapshots to a remote ZFS machine? I use a simple bash script for this:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
# ZFS Snapshot BASH script by Shawn Westerhoff
# Updated 1/14/2014
### DATE VARIABLES
# D = Today's date
# D1 = Yesterday's date
# D# = Today less # days date
Y=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D=$(date +%m-%d-%Y)
D1=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D10=$(date -v-10d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D20=$(date -v-20d '+%m-%d-%Y')
# Step 1: Make the snapshots
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs snapshot $i@$D
fi
done
# Step 2: Send the snapshots to backup ZFS sever
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
zfs send -i $i@$D1 $i@$D | ssh -c arcfour root@10.10.10.10 zfs recv $i
done
# Step 3: Destroy snapshots that are 20 days old
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs destroy $i@$D20
fi
done
add a comment |
Why not zfs send your snapshots to a remote ZFS machine? I use a simple bash script for this:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
# ZFS Snapshot BASH script by Shawn Westerhoff
# Updated 1/14/2014
### DATE VARIABLES
# D = Today's date
# D1 = Yesterday's date
# D# = Today less # days date
Y=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D=$(date +%m-%d-%Y)
D1=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D10=$(date -v-10d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D20=$(date -v-20d '+%m-%d-%Y')
# Step 1: Make the snapshots
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs snapshot $i@$D
fi
done
# Step 2: Send the snapshots to backup ZFS sever
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
zfs send -i $i@$D1 $i@$D | ssh -c arcfour root@10.10.10.10 zfs recv $i
done
# Step 3: Destroy snapshots that are 20 days old
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs destroy $i@$D20
fi
done
Why not zfs send your snapshots to a remote ZFS machine? I use a simple bash script for this:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
# ZFS Snapshot BASH script by Shawn Westerhoff
# Updated 1/14/2014
### DATE VARIABLES
# D = Today's date
# D1 = Yesterday's date
# D# = Today less # days date
Y=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D=$(date +%m-%d-%Y)
D1=$(date -v-1d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D10=$(date -v-10d '+%m-%d-%Y')
D20=$(date -v-20d '+%m-%d-%Y')
# Step 1: Make the snapshots
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs snapshot $i@$D
fi
done
# Step 2: Send the snapshots to backup ZFS sever
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
zfs send -i $i@$D1 $i@$D | ssh -c arcfour root@10.10.10.10 zfs recv $i
done
# Step 3: Destroy snapshots that are 20 days old
for i in $( zfs list -H -o name ); do
if [ $i == tier1 ]
then echo "$i found, skipping"
else
zfs destroy $i@$D20
fi
done
edited Dec 7 '14 at 3:02
HalosGhost
3,72592236
3,72592236
answered Dec 7 '14 at 2:33
Shawn WesterhoffShawn Westerhoff
211
211
add a comment |
add a comment |
I created a tool called snapdump that let's you create incremental dumps of your zfs datasets to a foreign (non zfs) file system.
Snapdump also supports restoring an incremental snapshot chain with a single command.
add a comment |
I created a tool called snapdump that let's you create incremental dumps of your zfs datasets to a foreign (non zfs) file system.
Snapdump also supports restoring an incremental snapshot chain with a single command.
add a comment |
I created a tool called snapdump that let's you create incremental dumps of your zfs datasets to a foreign (non zfs) file system.
Snapdump also supports restoring an incremental snapshot chain with a single command.
I created a tool called snapdump that let's you create incremental dumps of your zfs datasets to a foreign (non zfs) file system.
Snapdump also supports restoring an incremental snapshot chain with a single command.
answered Jan 3 at 5:17
Omry YadanOmry Yadan
1011
1011
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f164864%2fwhats-an-effective-offsite-backup-strategy-for-a-zfs-mirrored-pool%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
My current strategy is the multiple pool method, with zfs send and receive to keep snapshots synced up. Would love to hear if you've found an argument against this or a better option.
– so12311
Nov 17 '14 at 13:32