Pool master role
-
Our setup is to have two xcp-ng servers at a client site:
- Master = Production Server
- Slave = DR Server
I just performed an update of both servers and it appeared that when the pool master was offline the DR server was also unavailable? Is this the correct?
If so then, as I would need the DR server to be available in the event of the Production server failing, the two servers would need to be in separate single server pools.
-
Hi,
Yes, you need a master available to get XO (or any client) to manage it. But without a master, the other pool members will continue to run their existing VMs. You can promote any other node as the master if you need to.
But in a DR case, I don't see the need to have those 2 hosts in the same pool. Having 2 different pools is better because whatever happen into one won't affect the other (which is what one wants in a DR scenario)
-
100%
-
O olivierlambert marked this topic as a question on
-
O olivierlambert has marked this topic as solved on
-
@McHenry said in Pool master role:
100%
You could easily have two distinct pools with Continuous Replication from the first to the second pool.
If something happened to the first host, you could start the VM's on the second host, usually within minutes of noticing. Maybe even seconds depending how quickly you can respond.
-
Thanks Dustin. This is exactly our goal setup.
Thinking further, as XO/XOA could be hosted on either host it would make sense to host this on the DR host.