Since both netbox servers act as peers against the same database, we can run them active/active.
Description
Description
Details
Details
Related Changes in Gerrit:
| Subject | Repo | Branch | Lines +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Add netbox geodns entries. | operations/dns | master | +11 -1 |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Change 541602 had a related patch set uploaded (by CRusnov; owner: CRusnov):
[operations/dns@master] Add netbox geodns entries.
Comment Actions
The swap of Traffic for Traffic-Icebox in this ticket's set of tags was based on a bulk action for all tickets that aren't are neither part of our current planned work nor clearly a recent, higher-priority emergent issue. This is simply one step in a larger task cleanup effort. Further triage of these tickets (and especially, organizing future potential project ideas from them into a new medium) will occur afterwards! For more detail, have a look at the extended explanation on the main page of Traffic-Icebox . Thank you!
Comment Actions
Change 541602 abandoned by Ayounsi:
[operations/dns@master] Add netbox geodns entries.
Reason:
done through a different commit
Comment Actions
wow I didn't know about this task :)
Since then a lot happened, but active/active netbox is still something we're looking at doing.
We have https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/dns/+/808198 blocked on T311385: Netbox and Redis
Comment Actions
An active/active Netbox is not really doable for now. For both Redis and Postgres the extra cross-DC latency makes it practically unusable (see T341843: Netbox rq.timeouts.JobTimeoutException and T330883: Improve Netbox active/passive failover process. And it doesn't seems doable for not to even just split reads and writes.
We should focus our efforts on improving the active/passive failover process.