Experiments with a high-availability /home

I was recently experimenting with ways to configure my computing setup for high availability of my personal data, which is stored in a Btrfs-formatted partition on my SSD. When my workstation is booted into Windows, however, I want to be able to access my data with minimal effort. Since there’s no way to access a Btrfs volume natively from within Windows, I had to find another approach. It seemed like automatically syncing files out to my NAS was the best solution, since that’s always available and independent of most other things I would be doing at any time.


The obvious first option for syncing files to the NAS is the ever-common rsync. It’s great at periodic file transfers, but real-time syncing of modifications is rather beyond the ken of rsync.  lsync provides a reasonable way to keep things reasonably in-sync, but it’s far from an elegant solution.  Were I so motivated, it would be reasonable to devise a similar rsync wrapper using inotify (or similar mechanisms) to only handle modified files and possibly even postpone syncing changes until some change threshold is exceeded.  With existing software, however, rsync is a rather suboptimal solution.

From a cursory scan, cluster filesystems such as ceph or lustre seem like good options for tackling this problem.  The main disadvantage of the cluster filesystem approach, however, is rather high complexity. Most cluster filesystem implementations require a few layers of software, generally both a metadata server and storage server. In large deployments that software stack makes sense, but it’s needless complexity for me.  In addition, ensuring that data is correctly duplicated across both systems at any given time may be a challenge.  I didn’t end up trying this route so ensuring data duplication may be easier than it seems, but a cluster filesystem ultimately seemed like needless complexity for what I wanted to do.

While researching cluster filesystems, I discovered xtreemfs, which has a number of unique features, such as good support for wide-area storage networks, and is capable of operating securely even over the internet.  Downsides of xtreemfs are mostly related to the technology it’s built on, since the filesystem itself is implemented with Linux’s FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) layer and is implemented in Java.  Both those properties make it rather clunky to work with and configure, so I ended up looking for another solution after a little time spent attempting to build and configure xtreemfs.

The solution I ultimately settled upon was DRBD, which is a block-level replication tool.  Unlike the other approaches, DRBD sits at the block level (rather than the filesystem level), so any desired filesystem can be run on top of it.  This was a major advantage to me, because Btrfs provides a few features that I find important (checksums for data, and copy-on-write snapshotting). Handling block-level syncing is necessarily somewhat more network-intensive than running at the file level, but since I was targeting use over a gigabit LAN, network usage was a peripheral concern.


From the perspective of normal operation, a DRBD volume looks like RAID 1 running over a network.  One host is marked as the primary, and any changes to the volume on that host are propagated to the secondary host.  If the primary goes offline for whatever reason, the secondary system can be promoted to the new primary, and the resource stays available. In the situation of my designs for use of DRBD, my workstation machine would be the primary in order to achieve normal I/O performance while still replicating changes to the NAS. Upon taking the workstation down for whatever reason (usually booting it into another OS), all changes should be on the NAS, which remains active as a lone secondary.

DRBD doesn’t allow secondary volumes to be used at all (mainly since that would introduce additional concerns to ensure data integrity), so in order to mount the secondary and make it accessible (such as via a Samba share) the first step is to mark the volume as primary. I was initially cautious about how bringing the original primary back online would affect synchronization, but it turned out to handle such a situation gracefully. When the initial primary (workstation) comes back online following promotion of the secondary (NAS), the former primary is demoted back to secondary status, which also ensures that any changes while the workstation was offline are correctly mirrored back. While the two stores are resyncing, it is possible to mark the workstation as primary once more and continue normal operation while the NAS’ modifications sync back.

Given that both my NAS and workstation machines run Arch Linux, setup of DRBD for this scheme was fairly simple. First order of business was to create a volume to base DRBD on. The actual DRBD driver is part of mainline Linux since version 2.6.33, so having the requisite kernel module loaded was easy. The userspace utilities are available in the AUR, so it was easy to get those configured and installed. Finally, I created a resource configuration file as follows:

resource home {
  device /dev/drbd0;
  meta-disk internal;

  protocol A;
  startup {
    become-primary-on Nakamura;

  on Nakamura {
    disk /dev/Nakamura/home;
    address ipv4;
  on Nero {
    disk /dev/loop0;
    address ipv4;


The device option specifies what name the DRBD block device should be created with, and meta-disk internal specifies that the DRBD metadata (which contains such things as the dirty bitmap for syncing modified blocks) should be stored within the backing device, rather than in some external file. The protocol line specifies asynchronous operation (don’t wait for a response from the secondary before returning saying a write is complete), which helps performance but makes the system less robust in the case of a sudden failure. Since my use case is less concerned with robustness and more with simple availability and maintaining performance as much as possible, I opted for the asynchronous protocol. The startup block specifies that Nakamura (the workstation) should be promoted to primary when it comes online.

The two on blocks specify the two hosts of the cluster. Nakamura’s volume is backed by a Linux logical volume (in the volume group ‘Nakamura’), while Nero’s is hosted on a loop device. I chose to use a loop device on Nero simply because the machine has a large amount of storage (6TB in RAID5), but no unallocated space, so I had to use a loop device. In using a loop device I ended up ignoring a warning in the DRBD manual about running it over loop block devices causing deadlocks– this ended up being a poor choice, as described later.

It was a fairly simple matter of bringing the volumes online once I had written the configuration. Load the relevant kernel module, and use the userland utilities to set up the backing device. Finally, bring the volume up. Repeat this series of steps again on the other host.

# modprobe drbd
# drbdadm create-md home
# drbdadm up home

With the module loaded and a volume online, status information is visible in /proc/drbd, looking something like the following (shamelessly taken from the DRBD manual):

$ cat /proc/drbd
version: 8.3.0 (api:88/proto:86-89)
GIT-hash: 9ba8b93e24d842f0dd3fb1f9b90e8348ddb95829 build by buildsystem@linbit, 2008-12-18 16:02:26
 0: cs:Connected ro:Secondary/Secondary ds:UpToDate/UpToDate C r---
    ns:0 nr:8 dw:8 dr:0 al:0 bm:2 lo:0 pe:0 ua:0 ap:0 ep:1 wo:b oos:0

The first few lines provide version information, and the two lines beginning with ‘0:’ describe the state of a DRBD volume. Of the rest of the information, we can see that both hosts are online and communicating (Connected), both are currently marked as secondaries (Secondary/Secondary), and both have the latest version of all data (UpToDate/UpToDate). The last step in creating the volume is to mark one host as primary. Since this is a newly-created volume, marking one host as primary requires invalidation of the other, prompting resynchronization of the entire device. I execute drbdadm primary --force home on Nakamura to mark that host as having the canonical version of the data, and the devices begin to synchronize.

Once everything is set, it becomes possible to use the DRBD block device (/dev/drbd0 in my configuration) like any other block device- create filesystems, mount it, or write random data to it. With a little work to invoke the DRBD initscripts at boot time, I was able to get everything working as expected. There were a few small issues with the setup, though:

  • Nero (the NAS) required manual intervention to be promoted to the primary role. This could be improved by adding some sort of hooks on access to promote it to primary and mount the volume. This could probably be implemented with autofs for a truly transparent function, or even a simple web page hosted by the NAS which prompts promotion when it is visited.
  • Deadlocks! I mentioned earlier that I chose to ignore the warning in the manual about deadlocks when running DRBD on top of loop devices, and I did start seeing some on Nero. All I/O on the volume hosting the loop device on Nero would stall, and the only way out was by rebooting the machine.


DRBD works for keeping data in sync between two machines in a transparent fashion, at the cost of a few more software requirements and a slight performance hit. The kernelspace tools are in mainline Linux so should be available in any reasonably recent kernel, but availability of the userspace utilities is questionable. Fortunately, building them for oneself is fairly easy. Provided the drbd module is loaded, it is not necessary to use the userspace utilities to bring the volume online- the backing block device can be mounted without DRBD, but the secondary device will need to be manually invalidated upon reconnect. That’s useful for ensuring that it’s difficult for data to be rendered inaccessible, since the userspace utilities are not strictly needed to get at the data.

I ultimately didn’t continue running this scheme for long, mainly due to the deadlock issues I had on the NAS, which could have been resolved with some time spent reorganizing the storage on that host. I decided that wasn’t worth the effort, however. To achieve a similar effect, I ended up configuring a virtual machine on my Windows installation that has direct access to the disks which have Linux-hosted data, so I can boot the physical Linux installation in a virtual machine. By modifying the initscripts a little, I configured it to start Samba at boot time when running virtualized in order to give access to the data. The virtualized solution is a bit more of a hack than DRBD and is somewhat less robust (in case of unexpected shutdown, this makes two operating systems coming down hard), but I think the relative simplicity and absence of a network tether are a reasonable compromise.

Were I to go back to a DRBD-backed solution at some time, I might want to look into using DRBD in dual-primary mode. In most applications only a single primary can be used since most filesystems are designed without the locking required to allow multiple drivers to operate on them at the same time (this is why NFS and similar network filesystems require lock managers). Using a shared-disk filesystem such as OCFS (or OCFS2), DRBD is capable of having both hosts in primary mode, so the filesystem can be mounted and modified on both hosts at once. Using dual primaries would simplify the promotion scheme (each host must simply be promoted to primary when it comes online), but would also require care to avoid split-brain situations (in which communications are lost but both hosts are still online and processing I/O requests, so they desync and require manual intervention to resolve conflicts). I didn’t try OCFS2 at all during this experiment mainly because I didn’t want to stop using btrfs as my primary filesystem.

To conclude, DRBD works for what I wanted to do, but deadlocks while running it on a loop device kept me from using it for long. The virtual machine-based version of this scheme performs well enough for my needs, despite being rather clunky to work with. I will keep DRBD in mind for similar uses in the future, though, and may revisit the issue at a later date when my network layout changes.

Update 26.1.2012: I’ve revisited this concept in a simpler (and less automatic) fashion.

Some beautiful music

I very rarely use the work ‘beautiful’, but in the case of this song, I think it’s apt. Kimi no shiranai monogatari by Supercell, the closing theme for Bakemonogatari (which is well worth watching in its own right, hosting some other catchy music as well as having a unique visual style).

(Turn on captions and up the video quality for great justice)

A delicious sound, and I also like the allusion to Tanabata (in referring to the Summer Triangle).  Taken in the context of Bakemonogatari, the power of the lyrics is only increased.

Continue reading Some beautiful music

A few small projects

Going through some of my old projects this evening, I came across a couple little tools I wrote.  I’ve uploaded them here in the hope that others will find them useful.  They are the GCNClient GUI and RX BRR calculator.

I make no guarantees of the utility of these pieces of software, but they may be useful as examples in how to perform some task in the .NET framework (both are written in C# for .NET), or just for performing the very specific tasks which they are designed to perform.

Back to wordpress

After about a year of running a purely static site here, I finally decided it would be worthwhile to move the site backend back to WordPress.

I moved away from WordPress early this year primarily because I was dissatisfied with the theming situation.  While lightword is certainly a well-designed piece of software and markup, I wanted a system that would be easier to customize.  Being written and configured in PHP (a language I don’t know have have little interest in learning), I decided WordPress didn’t offer the easy customizeability that I wanted in a web publishing platform, and made the switch to generating the site as a set of static pages with hyde.  I’ve now decided to make the switch back to WordPress, and the rest of this post outlines my thought process in doing so.


One of the things that I am most concerned about in life is the preservation of information.  To me, destruction of information, no matter the content, is a deeply regrettable action.  Deliberate destruction of data is fortunately rare, but too often it may still be lost, often through simple neglect.  For example, [science fiction author] Charlie Stross, in a recent discussion, noted that the web site belonging to Robert Bradbury has become inaccessible at some point since his death, and Mr. Stross was thus unable to find Bradbury’s original article on the subject of Matroishka brains.

That comment led me to realize quickly that this great distributed repository of our age (the world wide web) is a frighteningly ethereal thing- what exists on a server at one moment may disappear without warning for reasons ranging from legal intervention (perhaps because some party asserts the information is illegal to distribute) to the death of the author (in which one’s web hosting may be suspended due to unpaid bills).  Whatever the reason, it is impossible to guarantee that some piece of data will not be lost forever if the author’s copy disappears.

How can we preserve information on the web?  Historically, libraries have filled that role, and in that respect, things haven’t changed that much in the Internet age.  The Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization that works to be like a digital library, and they specifically note that huge swaths of cultural (and other) data might be lost to the depths of time if we do not take steps to preserve it now.  The Internet Archive’s wayback machine (which will probably be familiar to many readers who have needed to track down no-longer-online data) is a continually-updated archive of snapshots of the web.

It’s fairly slow to crawl, but most pages are eventually found by the wayback machine crawlers, so the challenge of data preservation is greatly reduced for site owners, to in most cases only requiring content to be online for a short time (probably less than a year in most cases) before it is permanently archived.  For non-textual content unfortunately, the wayback machine is useless, since it will only mirror web pages, and not images or other non-textual content.  To ensure preservation of non-textual content, however, the solution is also rather easy: upload it to the Internet Archive.  It’s not automatic like the wayback machine, but the end result is the same.

Back to WordPress

This brings me back to my choice of using WordPress to host this web site, rather than a solution that I develop and maintain.  Quite simply, I decided that it is more important to get information I produce out in public so it can be disseminated and archived, rather than maintain fine-grained control over the presentation of the information.

While with Hyde I was able to easily control every aspect of the site design and layout, it also meant that I had to much write much of the the software to drive any additional features that might improve searchability or structure of the content.  When working with WordPress (or any out-of-the-box CMS really), however, I can concern myself with the things that are of real importance- the data, and let the presentation mostly take care of itself.

While Hyde put up barriers to disseminating information (the source being decoupled from presentation and requiring offline editing, for example), my new-old out-of-the-box CMS solution in WordPress makes it extremely easy to publicize information without getting tied up in details which are ultimately irrelevant.

Filtering oneself

With ease of putting information out in public comes the challenge of searching it.  I try to be selective about what I make public, partially because I tend to be somewhat introverted, but also in order to ensure that the information I generate and publicize is that which is of interest to people in the future (although it seems I was only doing the latter subconsciously prior to now).  There are platforms to fill with drivel and day-to-day artifacts of life, but a site like this is not one of them- Twitter, Facebook, and numerous other ‘social’ web sites fill that niche admirably, but can never replace more carefully curated collections


Preservation of ephemera is at the core of some of the large privacy concerns in today’s world.  Companies such as Facebook host huge amounts of arguably irrelevant content generated by their users, and mine the data to generate profiles for their users.  On its surface, this is an amazing piece of work, because these companies have effectively constructed automated systems to document the lives of everybody currently alive.  Let that sink in for a moment: Facebook is capable of generating a moderately detailed biography for each of this planet’s 7 billion people (provided they each were to provide Facebook with some basic data).

What would you do with a biography of someone distilled from advertising data (advertising data because that’s what Facebook exists to do- sell information about what you might like to buy to advertisers)?  I don’t know, but the future has a way of finding interesting ways to use existing data.  In some distant future, maybe a project might seek to reconstruct (even resurrect, by a way of thinking) everybody who ever lived.  There are innumerable possibilities for what might be done with the data (this goes for anything, not just biographical data like this), but it becomes impossible to use it if it gets destroyed.

The historical bane of all archives has been capacity.  With digital archives, this is a significantly smaller problem.  With multi-terabyte hard disks costing on the order of $0.10 per gigabyte and solid-state memory continuing to follow the pace of Moore’s law (although probably not for much longer), it is easier than ever to store huge amounts of information, dwarfing the largest collections of yesteryear.  As long as storage capacity continues to grow (we’ve only recently scratched the surface of using quantum phenomena (holography) for data storage, for example), the sheer amount of data generated by nearly any process is not a concern.

Back on topic

Returning from that digression, the point of switching this site back to a WordPress backend is to get data out to the public more reliably and faster, in order to preserve the information more permanently.  What finally pushed me back was a sudden realization that there’s nothing stopping me from customizing WordPress in a similar fashion to what I did on the Hyde-based site- it simply requires a bit of experience with the backend code.  While PHP is one language I tend to loathe, the immediate utility of a working system is more valuable than the potential utility of a system I need to program myself.

There’s another lesson I can derive from this experience, too: building a flexible system is good, but you should distribute it ready-to-go for a common use case.  Reducing the barrier to entry for a tool can make or break it, and tools that go unused are of no use- getting people using a new creation is the primary barrier to progress