Nutanix Data Protection about Three Sites in Two Places

  • 12 January 2023
  • 1 reply

Hello guys,

We are considering upgrading the existing Nutanix cluster environment to meet high reliability protection for critical applications.Currently we have a site A as the production cluster and site B as the disaster recovery cluster. The sites on both sides use Leap to provide a data protection strategy with an RPO 15 Mins.All sites' virtualization systems are using AHV.

Now we plan to build a new site C, and do real-time synchronous data transmission with site A.Site A and Site C will be deployed in the same building.At the same time, it is hoped to ensure that the failure of either site A or site C will not cause data loss or service interruption.We hope to use Nutanix's data synchronization solution.However, we found that once the VM uses Leap to configure the real-time synchronization policy, the original Leap asynchronous transmission policy cannot be applied.It appears that only one Leap protection policy can be applied to the same VM.

Therefore, based on the above situation, we consider using third-party backup software (similar to Veeam, etc.) to handle the data transmission with RPO 15 mins from site A to site B.

We don't know if there is a better solution other than this. For example, only using Nutanix's solution without introducing third-party backup software can meet our needs.


Best answer by cypherstrength 18 January 2023, 16:01

View original

This topic has been closed for comments

1 reply

Badge +2

Hi neto2333, 

It sounds like you are using Near-Sync today with 15min RPO. You can utilize Near-Sync in a 1:2 fashion today where a VM in site A can be apart of a protection policy to 2 different clusters using Near-Sync.  Also there is no additional overhead for using 15 minute RPO vs 1 minute RPO in Near-Sync. The only thing Near-Sync lacks is the ability to have a witness act as an automated failover mechanism so if that isnt important to you, this sounds like a great solution to solve your problem. 

We are working on multi-sync for a VM that is protected synchronously to also be apart of a Near-Sync / Async policy.