-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Additional Functionality #1
Comments
You could achieve redundancy today using these techniques:
We will try to provide more documentation about how to implement these solutions with existing BridgeCTL functionality. ---- Ideas for future improvements ---
These features are still under design and development. We appreciate your feedback and will solicit additional feedback and beta testers when we are ready. |
Thanks With Kubernetes its different in a sense that I may want a complete separate cluster/nodes for each site, if I have 3 sites, each may serve a separate set of databases, and ROLP would dictate you limit that to a set cluster/node and limited database connectivity, atm it treats sites using one cluster which isnt the best way to achieve separated config and design |
This tool is fantastic in deployment for bridge on Docker and Kubernetes however in a real world scenario I feel benefit would be brought in adding additional redundancy
Adding say 3 bridge containers onto one Monolithic VM with Docker causes problems if that VM is to go down, and provides no HA, you would possibly need multiple BridgeCTL with different endpoints which adds additional management
Also allowing deployment of multiple Kubernetes pods on single or multi-site is great, but allowing the ability to scale pods based on demand would better suit and also allowing different kubernetes clusters would allow for multiple site management with Cloud Manager when possibly one site needs a different cluster and networking vs the others
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: