Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add design doc elaborating how classes would be matched across peers #1403

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ShyamsundarR
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Signed-off-by: Shyamsundar Ranganathan <srangana@redhat.com>

### DRPC reconciler changes to update VRG spec

Based on the DRPolicy used by the DRPC, VRGs created will carry a supported
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We may potentially need spec.peerClasses than separate them out into sync|async.


- Workload deployed PVC should contain the SC to use, or if default SC is the
choice then both ManagedClusters should contain the same SC as the default
- Typically as default SC can be changed at any time, it is advisable that
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe the default storage class should be prohibited in DR for the same reason you mentioned. One day it works, and the next day, DR fails.


Given the above we need to solve the following problems for Ramen

- Determining which PVCs can be reliably protected in a Sync or Async manner
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we need to solve it for the Sync case?
I think you addressed in the second half of this document that it is a better way to determine whether protection is for metro or regional.

- Name: `SClass1`
- `ramendr.openshift.io/storageID: c1SID1`
- Name: `SClass2`
- `ramendr.openshift.io/storageID: c1SID2`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You mean c2SID1? Just so that line 163 is correct.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants