Apparently the default value for container_image in the cluster configuration is "docker.io/ceph/daemon-base:latest-pacific-devel". I don't know where that came from. I didn't set it anywhere. I'm not allowed to edit it, either (from the dashboard, anyway).
The container_image_base for the cephadm module is "docker.io/ceph/ceph". Also, 16.2.6 is already out, so I'm not sure why I'd be getting 16.2.5 development releases. Is this possibly related to the issues with docker.io and move to quay.io? -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 2:33 PM To: Edward R Huyer <erh...@rit.edu> Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Daemon Version Mismatch (But Not Really?) After Deleting/Recreating OSDs On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 7:57 AM Edward R Huyer <erh...@rit.edu> wrote: > > Over the summer, I upgraded my cluster from Nautilus to Pacific, and > converted to use cephadm after doing so. Over the past couple weeks, I've > been converting my OSDs to use NVMe drives for db+wal storage. Schedule a > node's worth of OSDs to be removed, wait for that to happen, delete the PVs > and zap the drives, let the orchestrator do its thing. > > Over this past weekend, the cluster threw up a HEALTH_WARN due to mismatched > daemon versions. Apparently the recreated OSDs are reporting different > version information from the old daemons. > > New OSDs: > > - Container Image Name: > docker.io/ceph/daemon-base:latest-pacific-devel > > - Container Image ID: d253896d959e > > - Version: 16.2.5-226-g7c9eb137 I haven't done any work with cephadm, but this container name and the version tag look like you've installed the in-development next version of Pacific, not the released 16.2.5. Did you perhaps manage to put a phrase similar to "pacific-dev" somewhere instead of "pacific"? > > Old OSDs and other daemons: > > - Container Image Name: docker.io/ceph/ceph:v16 > > - Container Image ID: 6933c2a0b7dd > > - Version: 16.2.5 > > I'm assuming this is not actually a problem and will go away when I next > upgrade the cluster, but I figured I'd throw it out here in case someone with > more knowledge than I thinks otherwise. If it's not a problem, is there a > way to silence it until I next run an upgrade? Is there an explanation for > why it happened? > > ----- > Edward Huyer > Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences Rochester > Institute of Technology Golisano 70-2373 > 152 Lomb Memorial Drive > Rochester, NY 14623 > 585-475-6651 > erh...@rit.edu<mailto:erh...@rit.edu> > > Obligatory Legalese: > The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the > person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or > other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you > received this in error, please contact the sender and destroy any copies of > this information. > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an > email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
