> Which sounds like traditional master/slave setup, with fail over? Yes, thank you. I assumed that the emphasis on the speed of NVMe drives meant that master/s

> Which sounds like traditional master/slave setup, with fail over? Yes, thank you. I assumed that the emphasis on the speed of NVMe drives meant that master/slave synchronous replication was avoided and asynchronous replication could not keep up. In my mind, this leaves room for interesting future efficiency/performance gains, especially surrounding the "...and is backed up daily" approach mentioned in your quote. The bottom line is that the old RPO (Recovery Point Objective) and RTO (Recovery Time Objective) are as important as ever.