Hi, The goal is to sync some VMs from site1 - to - site2 and vice-versa sync some VMs in the other way. I am thinking of using rdb mirroring for that. But I have little experience with Ceph management. I am searching for the best way to do that. I could create two pools on each site, and cross sync the pools. PoolA (site1) -----> PoolA (site2) PoolB (site1) <----- PoolB (site2) Or create one pool on each site and cross sync the VMs I need. PoolA (site1) <-----> PoolA (site2) The first option seems to be the safest and the easiest to manage. Regards. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> Le mer. 3 mai 2023 à 08:21, Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx> a écrit : > Hi, > > just to clarify, you mean in addition to the rbd mirroring you want to > have another sync of different VMs between those clusters (potentially > within the same pools) or are you looking for one option only? Please > clarify. Anyway, I would use dedicated pools for rbd mirroring and > then add more pools for different use-cases. > > Regards, > Eugen > > Zitat von wodel youchi <wodel.youchi@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks > > I am trying to find out what is the best way to synchronize VMS between > two > > HCI Proxmox clusters. > > Each cluster will contain 3 compute/storage nodes and each node will > > contain 4 nvme osd disks. > > > > There will be a 10gbs link between the two platforms. > > > > The idea is to be able to sync VMS between the two platforms in case of > > disaster bring the synced VMS up. > > > > Would you recommend to create a dedicated pool in each platform to > > synchronization? > > > > Regards. > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2023, 13:30 Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> while your assumptions are correct (you can use the rest of the pool > >> for other non-mirrored images), at least I'm not aware of any > >> limitations, can I ask for the motivation behind this question? Mixing > >> different use-cases doesn't seem like a good idea to me. There's > >> always a chance that a client with caps for that pool deletes or > >> modifies images or even the entire pool. Why not simply create a > >> different pool and separate those clients? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Eugen > >> > >> Zitat von wodel youchi <wodel.youchi@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > When using rbd mirroring, the mirroring concerns the images only, not > the > >> > whole pool? So, we don't need to have a dedicated pool in the > destination > >> > site to be mirrored, the only obligation is that the mirrored pools > must > >> > have the same name. > >> > > >> > In other words, We create two pools with the same name, one on the > source > >> > site the other on the destination site, we create the mirror link (one > >> way > >> > or two ways replication), then we choose what images to sync. > >> > > >> > Both pools can be used simultaneously on both sites, it's the mirrored > >> > images that cannot be used simultaneously, only promoted ones. > >> > > >> > Is this correct? > >> > > >> > Regards. > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > >> > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |