1

Script on sending end is as follows:

#!/bin/sh

#Variables

bigdata=vid-zfs-live/bigdata

today=`gdate +%m-%d-%y`

yesterday=`gdate -d'yesterday' +%m-%d-%y`


#Actions

zfs snapshot -r "$bigdata"@"$today"

zfs send -i "$bigdata"@"$yesterday" "$bigdata"@"$today" | nc -w 700 192.168.10.11 8024

Cron entry on sending end is as follows:

30 0 * * * /scripts/zfssendBigData.sh > /tmp/cron1.log

Script on receiving end is as follows:

#!/bin/sh

/usr/bin/nc -l -p 8024 | zfs receive -F vid-zfs-bak/bigdata

Cron entry on receiving end is as follows:

 29 0 * * * /scripts/zfsreceiveBigData.sh > /tmp/cron2.log

cron1.log and cron2.log are both empty.

mailx on the receiving end shows:

Your "cron" job on atm-frontend-02
/scripts/zfsreceiveBigData.sh

produced the following output:

nc: -w has no effect with -l
cannot receive: failed to read from stream

Things Worth Noting:

The snapshot portion works fine, the snapshots are created. So I know the script is running. It's specifically the send/receive that isn't working.

I tried using absolute paths to all the programs like /usr/bin/nc, /usr/sbin/zfs, etc.

I verified the clocks on both systems are within 10 seconds of each other.

Both systems Solaris 11.3

Copy Run Start
  • 724
  • 1
  • 9
  • 27
  • Dumb question first: Where is `nc: -w has no effect with -l` coming from? Are you certain your receiving script is as shown? Or possibly you have an alias for `nc` somewhere? Equally dumb question: Are you sure you're not using port 8024 for anything else? (It's possible with Solaris `nc` to listen on both 0.0.0.0:8024 and a specific IP such as 192.168.10.11:8024) – Brandon Xavier Apr 30 '16 at 04:04

1 Answers1

1

I would suggest executing the script from the sending side and using that to trigger the receive portion. There's no sense in starting a cron job on both ends...

You can issue commands on your remote server from the local server using ssh.

ewwhite
  • 194,921
  • 91
  • 434
  • 799
  • I thought about that but the SSH overhead slows it down. I've tried mbuffer to no avail. The two machines are directly connected by ethernet so I don't see netcat as security risk. – Copy Run Start Apr 30 '16 at 03:04