You could combine method #1 with ManageIQ [1] to get unified management. Barak.
[1] http://manageiq.org/ On 6 October 2015 at 19:25, Darrell Budic <[email protected]> wrote: > I use method 1. One thing to consider is that the engine manages HA VMs, > migrations, etc. It doesn’t need much bandwidth, but if it can’t talk to > nodes, no migrations can happen, either for load balancing or in case of a > node or storage failure. > > If you had very solid networking, it’s probably fine, but I find it works > better in my situation to run a self hosted engine for each cluster. > > -Darrell > >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 2:17 PM, wodel youchi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I need some help to decide which is better / feasible with ovirt to manage >> two or more distant DCs. >> >> Let say that we have two distant DCs to virtualize with ovirt. >> >> we have two options to manage them: >> >> 1- install two engines, one on each DC, the good side is, if one DC is down, >> we can still manage the other one. the down side we will have two consoles >> to manage. >> >> 2- install one engine to manage the two DCs, the good side is the use of one >> console to rule them all :-) the down side is if the DC containing the >> engine become down, there is way to manage the other one. >> >> is there (will be there in the future) a way for example to create a slave >> engine in the second DC which can takeover and let the admin to manage the >> second DC? >> >> thanks in advance >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users -- Barak Korren [email protected] RHEV-CI Team _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
