[SOLVED] Replication with different target storage name

[Archmatux]

Hi All,

I've just upgraded to Proxmox 5.0 and I'm just getting to grips with some of the new features.
First of all I believe congratulations to the dev's are in order. The upgrade was seamless and I was able to get both my nodes upgraded in less than 30 minutes.

I'm currently trying out the replication but am struggling to get it going.
From what I can tell, it expects the target storage to have the same name as the source storage.

In my case, my primary node has ssd's in a pool named vmFlashPool and my secondary node has hdd's in a pool named vmSpinnyPool.

I also have this problem with live migration.

Is there a way to specify the name of the target storage?

If not, is this a feature that may be added in the future?

 

[dietmar]

Is there a way to specify the name of the target storage?

If not, is this a feature that may be added in the future?

Yes, this is a planned feature, but currently not available.

 

[Archmatux]

Cheers dietmar.

Just checked out the roadmap:

• live migration with local storage (qemu) to the gui
• support for external fencing devices
• qdevice (additional external vote, e.g. for 2-node clusters)
• Cloudinit
• Ceph improvements

Cant wait

Keep up the good work.

 

[aTan]

Very needed feature. Different nodes has different pool names.

 

[Cronus89]

Any update on this? I just was trying to do this and found this post that its not possible

 

[Timo Goetze]

Is there already a release plan for this feature? ...yesterday bought 4cpu lics and need it. thX

 

[Timo Goetze]

Is there already a release plan for this feature? ...yesterday bought 4cpu lics and need it. thX

I added an issue for something like this: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087

 

[liquidox]

I am also running into this problem, is there any news?

 

[Andres.Urzagasti]

Yet Another User Here asking for resolution to this problem. There are NOT SOLVED.

 

[macpip]

Me to: please, enable to specify the per-node storage where the replica should be done

 

[wasteground]

Please add me to the list of users who would love to see this added too

 

[schroederdennis.de]

Topic UP! Different Names in Replication would be nice.

 

[waliwdenko]

I'm waiting for this feature also

 

[prahn]

Me too. Especially my (most important) VMs running on SSD storage should be replicated to another node with SSD storage. That's not possible right now. :-(

 

[tabnul]

candidate here as well Would be a good feature for added flexibility.

 

[lennart]

Add me to this list too. Would be great to replicate from local-zfs to for example nvme (other local zfs pool) target storage

 

[jedfrechette]

Consider this another +1.

Can anybody from Proxmox comment on this request's status? The last update was 4 years ago saying that it was planned?

 

[mjtir]

The lack of this feature is the reason that i cant propose proxmox in a production environment 24/7 .

 

[TobiasV]

The lack of this feature is the reason that i cant propose proxmox in a production environment 24/7 .

Same for me. I really need this feature.

 

[lewinernst]

+1