Hi,
Is there any mechanism inside the rgw that can detect faulty endpoints for a configuration with multiple endpoints?
Is there any advantage related with the number of replication endpoints? Can I expect improved replication performance (the more synchronization rgws = the faster replication)?
Is there any mechanism inside the rgw that can detect faulty endpoints for a configuration with multiple endpoints?
Is there any advantage related with the number of replication endpoints? Can I expect improved replication performance (the more synchronization rgws = the faster replication)?
W dniu środa, 17 lipca 2019 P. O. <posdub@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
W dniu wtorek, 16 lipca 2019 Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):We used to have issues when a load balancer was in front of the sync endpoints, because our http client didn't time out stalled connections. Those are resolved in luminous, but we still recommend using the radosgw addresses directly to avoid shoveling data through an extra proxy. Internally, sync is already doing a round robin over that list of endpoints. On the other hand, load balancers give you some extra flexibility, like adding/removing gateways without having to update the global multisite configuration.
On 7/16/19 2:52 PM, P. O. wrote:
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"],
}
],
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?
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.
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
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
