On 7/17/19 8:04 AM, P. O. wrote:
Hi,
Is there any mechanism inside the rgw that can detect faulty endpoints
for a configuration with multiple endpoints?
No, replication requests that fail just get retried using round robin
until they succeed. If an endpoint isn't available, we assume it will
come back eventually and keep trying.
Is there any advantage related with the number of replication
endpoints? Can I expect improved replication performance (the more
synchronization rgws = the faster replication)?
These endpoints act as the server side of replication, and handle GET
requests from other zones to read replication logs and fetch objects. As
long as the number of gateways on the client side of replication (ie.
gateways on other zones that have rgw_run_sync_thread enabled, which is
on by default) scale along with these replication endpoints, you can
expect a modest improvement in replication, though it's limited by the
available bandwidth between sites. Spreading replication endpoints over
several gateways also helps to limit the impact of replication on the
local client workloads.
W dniu środa, 17 lipca 2019 P. O. <posdub@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:posdub@xxxxxxxxx>> napisał(a):
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)?
W dniu wtorek, 16 lipca 2019 Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
