Depends on your aim.
Be aware that the OpenStack community does not really have a good handle on
"backup", on efficiency at scale, and the differing levels of service.
>From the perspective of building efficient backup at scale, the existing
OpenStack APIs make almost no sense.
If your deploymen
One of the extra benefit could be that you’re doing backup on another Ceph
cluster (potentially on another location).
However this will never prevent you from corruption since if corruption already
occurred then it will be replicated.
Like Erik mentioned a catastrophic situation were you lose al
It doesn't buy you a lot in that sort of setup, but it would put it in a
different pool and thus different placement groups and OSDs. It could
potentially protect you from data loss in some catastrophic situation.
-Erik
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I can
Hi All,
I can see the obvious distinction between cinder-snapshot and
cinder-backup being that snapshots would live on the same storage back
end as the active volume (using that ever snapshotting that provides)
where the backup would be to different storage.
We're using Ceph for volume and object
