Well, you can add / list the other regions. I'm still trying to get my head around why, but honestly I think it's more of a future looking thing.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:39:14PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > Chip, > > Why do we have a region entity in the database if everything is assumed to be > one and only region? > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 19, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > > > >> Chip, > >> > >> So two regions won't share the same database? > >> > > > > Nope, that's why you have to use something (not provided yet) to sync the > > acct / domain metadata between them. > > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -John > >> > >> On Jul 19, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:46:36PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> In reviewing the 4.2 object store enhancements, object stores are > >> defined with region scope. However, there is no way to assign an object > >> store definition to a region. To my way of thinking, we must be able to > >> assign an object store to a region to avoid transfer of large assets across > >> WAN links. Furthermore, it greatly reduces availability of the object > >> store cluster because the management server/ssvm may attempt to connect to > >> an object store over a WAN link when co-located instance is available. Why > >> isn't assignment of an object store to a region supported? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -John > >>> > >>> AFAIK, a management server is only a control point for a single region. > >>> The Region entity is used to provide users with a reference to other > >>> regions that may be part of the same service. If I'm right, then the > >>> locally configured object-store would be for that region only. > >>> > >>> Other feel free to correct me. > >> > >> > >> > >
