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 <jon at jonproulx.com> wrote: > 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 storage so it seems like > running cinder-backup in that case (with active, snap, and backup > would be all in essentially the same backend) would not make a whole > lot of sense. > > Is my thinking right on this or are there advantages of 'backup' over > 'snapshot' that I'm not considering? > > -Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > Post to : openstack at lists.openstack.org > Unsubscribe : > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20150130/9a599433/attachment.html>