> On Jan 7, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Paul B. Henson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Richard Elling >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 5:57 PM >> >> ok, so this is DR, not backup, correct? > > Well, more fault-tolerance/failover than DR, but yes. The primary server is > accessible via sftp/CIFS for users to access, and provides content via > http/https. If the primary server fails or is under maintenance, http/https > service automatically fails over to the secondary server which has all of > the content, but is not accessible to end-users for updating. If the primary > server ever fails and will be inaccessible for an extended amount of time, > services will be enabled on the secondary and it will be converted into the > primary so the users can start updating content there. The primary, once > brought back online, will become the secondary.
I find it hard to justify failing to backup/DR because of quota? How do you explain this to the user when they do not have the ability to correct the situation on the backup system? Or, is the plan to place the quota management burden on Ops? -- richard _______________________________________________ developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
