Hi all,
I have multisite RGW setup with one zonegroup and two zones. Each zone has one endpoint configured like below:
"zonegroups": [
{
...
"is_master": "true",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.100.1:80"],
"zones": [
{
"name": "primary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.100.1:80"],
},
{
"name": "secondary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.200.1:80"],
}
],
{
...
"is_master": "true",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.100.1:80"],
"zones": [
{
"name": "primary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.100.1:80"],
},
{
"name": "secondary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.200.1:80"],
}
],
My question is what is the best practice with configuring synchronization endpoints?
1) Should endpoints be behind load balancer? For example two synchronization endpoints per zone, and only load balancers address in "endpoints" section?
2) Should endpoints be behind Round-robin DNS?
1) Should endpoints be behind load balancer? For example two synchronization endpoints per zone, and only load balancers address in "endpoints" section?
2) Should endpoints be behind Round-robin DNS?
3) Can I set RGWs addresses directly in endpoints section? For example:
"zones": [
{
"name": "primary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.100.1:80", http://192.168.100.2:80],
},
{
"name": "secondary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.200.1:80", http://192.168.200.2:80],
}
Is there any advantages of third option? I mean speed up of synchronization, for example.
"zones": [
{
"name": "primary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.100.1:80", http://192.168.100.2:80],
},
{
"name": "secondary_1",
"endpoints": ["http://192.168.200.1:80", http://192.168.200.2:80],
}
Is there any advantages of third option? I mean speed up of synchronization, for example.
What recommendations do you have with the configuration of the endpoints in prod environments?
Best regards,
Dun F.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com