I wondered if this applies: Ceph Releases (general) — Ceph Documentation<https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/releases/general/>. "Online, rolling upgrade support and testing from the last two (2) stable release(s) (starting from Luminous)." - which does imply I'm doing something invalid with one site on Squid and one on Octopus. However, I've reproduced this between Quincy (17.2.7) and Squid (19.2.0) now too, which according to the link above is a valid upgrade path. To be clear, I have: * SiteA (Quincy) < --- syncing --- > SiteB (Squid). * Write objects to SiteB, they appear on siteA shortly after. * Write objects to SiteA, they never appear on siteB. It seems to be 100% reproducible. Suspect I need to raise a tracker. I welcome any suggestions that I'm doing this wrong meanwhile. ________________________________ From: Alex Hussein-Kershaw (HE/HIM) Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 8:49 AM To: ceph-users <ceph-users@xxxxxxx> Subject: Ceph Multisite Version Compatibility Hi folks. I'm looking for some guidance on RGW multisite version sync compatibility. Particularly between Octopus and Squid. Context is I have two sites in a multisite pair replicating all S3 data. One is on Squid, one is on Octopus. Should I expect the multisite sync to just work between these versions? I'm observing that both sites "radosgw-admin sync status" reports that we're in sync, but objects from the Octopus zone are not replicated to the Squid zone (but the opposite direction is fine). Might be this just isn't a valid setup, but failing to a reference that claims something like "must be within +/- 1 version of the other zones"). Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |