slave PFS best practices
Predrag Punosevac
punosevac72 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 13 09:07:19 PDT 2016
I was wondering if seasoned HAMMER users could let me know if I am doing
something outragesly stupid
I have configured a pair of 3 TB HDD SATA drives as my storage devices
as shown in my /etc/fstab
/dev/serno/WD-WCAWZ2111282.s1a /data hammer rw 2 2
/dev/serno/WD-WCAWZ2969584.s1a /backup hammer rw 2 2
/data/pfs/backups /data/backups null rw 0 0
and created MASTER /data/pfs/backups pfs which will be receiving rsync
backups from my various house devices and mounted as seen above
dfly# hammer pfs-status /data/backups
/data/backups PFS #1 {
sync-beg-tid=0x0000000000000001
sync-end-tid=0x0000000100028430
shared-uuid=a22e2639-e8e7-11e5-90ee-b9aeed3cce35
unique-uuid=a22e268b-e8e7-11e5-90ee-b9aeed3cce35
label=""
snapshots="/data/hammer/backups"
prune-min=00:00:00
operating as a MASTER
}
I changed the default location of snapshots from /var/hammer/<pfs> which
is on 32 GB SSD to a directory on the drive itself. Is this out of line?
I also adjusted few parameters
dfly# hammer viconfig /data/backups
snapshots 1d 60d
prune 1d 50m
rebalance 1d 50m
#dedup 1d 50m
reblock 1d 50m
recopy 30d 100m
as I am using Celeron embedded motherboard for this project which
doesn't have much mussle. I was not Goofing off at this time with
/etc/defaults/periodic.conf
and just left defaults
I created the correspoinding slave PFS on the second drive mounted as
/backup but not mounted
dfly# hammer info /backup
Volume identification
Label BACKUP
No. Volumes 1
FSID ce6f126e-e8e5-11e5-bd5c-b9aeed3cce35
HAMMER Version 6
Big-block information
Total 357432
Used 3 (0.00%)
Reserved 45 (0.01%)
Free 357384 (99.99%)
Space information
No. Inodes 9
Total size 2.7T (2998356934656 bytes)
Used 24M (0.00%)
Reserved 360M (0.01%)
Free 2.7T (99.99%)
PFS information
PFS ID Mode Snaps Mounted on
0 MASTER 1 /backup
1 SLAVE 1 not mounted
I adjusted the snapshot directory for the slave
dfly# hammer pfs-status /backup/backups
/backup/backups PFS #1 {
sync-beg-tid=0x0000000000000001
sync-end-tid=0x0000000100028430
shared-uuid=a22e2639-e8e7-11e5-90ee-b9aeed3cce35
unique-uuid=109e7319-e8eb-11e5-90ee-b9aeed3cce35
label=""
snapshots="/backup/hammer/backups"
prune-min=00:00:00
operating as a SLAVE
}
However I have not adjusted
hammer viconfig /backup/backups
# No configuration present, here are some defaults
# you can uncomment. Also remove these instructions
#
#snapshots 1d 60d
#prune 1d 5m
#rebalance 1d 5m
#dedup 1d 5m
#reblock 1d 5m
#recopy 30d 10m
as my understanding is that 160.clean-hammer periodic script only deal
with mounted pfs
# 160.clean-hammer
daily_clean_hammer_enable="YES"
maintenance
daily_clean_hammer_verbose="NO"
daily_clean_hammer_pfslist="" # default: mounted pfs
I am really not sure about the last two steps. While not mounting slave
PFS seems logical since mirror-copy is read only anyway I am not sure if
I should edit hammer viconfig /backup/backups. On one hand that would
seems logical considering data integrity but on another hand if the
daily script is not performing maintenance on it why bother. How do I
ensure that 3 months down the line when first HDD which hosts master PFS
dies its slave mirror on the second HDD is in good shape and can be
promoted to the master?
Best,
Predrag
More information about the Users
mailing list