Hello, On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:28:20 +0200 Cybertinus wrote: > Hello everybody, > > > I'm looking at Ceph as an alternative for my current storage solution, > but I'm wondering if it is the right choice for me. I'm hoping you guys > can help me decide. > > The current setup is a FreeBSD 10.1 machine running entirely on ZFS. The > function of the machine is offsite backup for important data. For some > (fairly rapidly changing) data this server is the only backup of it. But > because the data is changing fairly quickly (every day at least) I'm > looking to get this server more HA then it is now. > It is just one FreeBSD machine, so this is an enormous SPOF off course. > But aside from the SPOF part that machine is sufficient for your usage, right? Care to share the specs of it and what data volume (total space used, daily transactions) we're talking about> > The most used functionality of ZFS that I use is the snapshot technology. > I've got multiple users on this server and each user has it's own > filesystem within the pool. And I just snapshot each filesystem regularly > and that way I enable the users to go back in time. > I've looked at the snapshot functionality of Ceph, but it's not clear to > me what I can snapshot with it exactly. > > Furthermore: what is the best way to hook Ceph to the application I use > to transfer the data from the users to the backup server? Today I'm using > OwnCloud, which is (in essence) a WebDAV server. Now I'm thinking about > replacing OwnCloud with something custom build. That way I can let PHP > talk directly with librados, which makes it easy to store the data. > Or I can keep on using OwnCloud and just hook up Ceph via CephFS. This > has the added advantage that I don't have to get my head around the > concept of object storage :p ;). > I'm slightly confused here, namely: You use owncloud (I got a test installation on a VM here, too), which uses a DB (mysql by default) to index the files uploaded. How do you make sure that your snapshots are consistent when it comes to DB files other than being lucky 99.9% of the time? I'll let the CephFS experts pipe up, but the usual disclaimers about CephFS stability do apply, in particular the latest (beta) version of Ceph has this line on top of the changelog: --- Highlights here include lots of RGW Swift fixes, RBD feature work surrounding the new object map feature, more CephFS snapshot fixes, and a few important CRUSH fixes. --- Now you could just mount an RBD image (or run a VM) with BTRFS and have snapshots again that are known to work. However going back to my first question up there, I have a feeling that a functional Ceph cluster with at least 3 storage nodes might be both too expensive while at the same time less performant than what you have now. A 2 node DRBD cluster might fit your needs better. Christian -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |