Synology High-Availability Cluster
-
@pmoncho Thanks for talking it out with me!
-
@aaronstuder said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
you trust it, or am I better to just rsync the data ever so often?
I trust rsync better for this, a lot of times the SYnology Syncing or HYpervBackup files
-
@dbeato That's the direction I am headed! Thanks for the feedback
-
what are you trying to actually accomplish? From what I understand, the synology HA is an active/passive system and it takes a long time to actually fail over. I say this having no personal experience, but I have researched it because I have 3 synology's. The general consensus seems to be that their HA should not be considered a business level protection and its performance compared to other proper HA solutions reflects this.
-
@aaronstuder said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
Anyone every built a Synology High-Availability Cluster?
https://www.synology.com/en-us/dsm/feature/high_availability
Would you trust it, or am I better to just rsync the data ever so often?
It's a very silly idea. If you want HA, why are you on Synology? Fundamentally a bad idea because you are using a low availability, commodity solution, then trying to "fix that decision" by adding HA.
If HA was a need, why not start with enterprise gear in the first place?
-
@aaronstuder said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
@pmoncho I already have the units, so I am just looking for how to set it up.
This location has no room for a rack/servers/etc.
Seems like Shared Folder Sync should do what I want it to do.
Ah, making use of what you have.
Synology HA will be fine as long as you are using the Synologies appropriately.
-
@donahue said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
what are you trying to actually accomplish? From what I understand, the synology HA is an active/passive system and it takes a long time to actually fail over. I say this having no personal experience, but I have researched it because I have 3 synology's. The general consensus seems to be that their HA should not be considered a business level protection and its performance compared to other proper HA solutions reflects this.
@Donahue is correct. If you are using this for NFS HA, it works fine (for things like home shares or a backup target.) But for running live VMs from it, it isn't fast enough and everything fails because of the HA mechanism.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
@donahue said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
what are you trying to actually accomplish? From what I understand, the synology HA is an active/passive system and it takes a long time to actually fail over. I say this having no personal experience, but I have researched it because I have 3 synology's. The general consensus seems to be that their HA should not be considered a business level protection and its performance compared to other proper HA solutions reflects this.
@Donahue is correct. If you are using this for NFS HA, it works fine (for things like home shares or a backup target.) But for running live VMs from it, it isn't fast enough and everything fails because of the HA mechanism.
I am not even sure it should be used that way. I would expect that the HA was designed for an SMB share, not intended to produce the HA effect as seen in virtualization. If you use this as a NAS in the conventional sense, then the HA will probably do what you want if you are willing to live with the performance penalties. The two main ones are the delay in the failover and the fact that you are effectively cutting its network bandwidth in half because it has to always be writing to the second box. This is why I ask what the intended use was. There is probably a big difference between using this as a standard NAS that also has HA vs using this to try and get HA storage for a server.
-
@donahue said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
@donahue said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
what are you trying to actually accomplish? From what I understand, the synology HA is an active/passive system and it takes a long time to actually fail over. I say this having no personal experience, but I have researched it because I have 3 synology's. The general consensus seems to be that their HA should not be considered a business level protection and its performance compared to other proper HA solutions reflects this.
@Donahue is correct. If you are using this for NFS HA, it works fine (for things like home shares or a backup target.) But for running live VMs from it, it isn't fast enough and everything fails because of the HA mechanism.
I am not even sure it should be used that way. I would expect that the HA was designed for an SMB share, not intended to produce the HA effect as seen in virtualization. If you use this as a NAS in the conventional sense, then the HA will probably do what you want if you are willing to live with the performance penalties. The two main ones are the delay in the failover and the fact that you are effectively cutting its network bandwidth in half because it has to always be writing to the second box. This is why I ask what the intended use was. There is probably a big difference between using this as a standard NAS that also has HA vs using this to try and get HA storage for a server.
that's my point, for normal NFS use, it works fine. NFS won't time out. Synology is NFS native, that's it's primary protocol for mapped drives / shares.
-
Ah, I misread because I use NFS to plug mine into ESXi. That is the danger with synology HA. Your standard OS generally wont care of the file drop out for a time while the second synology realizes it has to become the active member. A hypervisor running VM's from it will certainly care though.
-
@donahue said in Synology High-Availability Cluster:
Ah, I misread because I use NFS to plug mine into ESXi. That is the danger with synology HA. Your standard OS generally wont care of the file drop out for a time while the second synology realizes it has to become the active member. A hypervisor running VM's from it will certainly care though.
Right, it's the hypervisor not looking the time to fail over. Will hit you if you use iSCSI on the Synology, too.
