Hi, I would like to second Nico's comment. What happened to the idea that a deployment tool should be idempotent? The most natural option would be:
1) start install -> something fails 2) fix problem 3) repeat exact same deploy command -> deployment picks up at current state (including cleaning up failed state markers) and tries to continue until next issue (go to 2) I'm not sure (meaning: its a terrible idea) if its a good idea to provide a single command to wipe a cluster. Just for the fat finger syndrome. This seems safe only if it would be possible to mark a cluster as production somehow (must be sticky, that is, cannot be unset), which prevents a cluster destroy command (or any too dangerous command) from executing. I understand the test case in the tracker, but having such test-case utils that can run on a production cluster and destroy everything seems a bit dangerous. I think destroying a cluster should be a manual and tedious process and figuring out how to do it should be part of the learning experience. So my answer to "how do I start over" would be "go figure it out, its an important lesson". Best regards, ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 ________________________________________ From: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottel...@ungleich.ch> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 10:40 PM To: Redouane Kachach Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Seeking feedback on Improving cephadm bootstrap process Hello Redouane, much appreciated kick-off for improving cephadm. I was wondering why cephadm does not use a similar approach to rook in the sense of "repeat until it is fixed?" For the background, rook uses a controller that checks the state of the cluster, the state of monitors, whether there are disks to be added, etc. It periodically restarts the checks and when needed shifts monitors, creates OSDs, etc. My question is, why not have a daemon or checker subcommand of cephadm that a) checks what the current cluster status is (i.e. cephadm verify-cluster) and b) fixes the situation (i.e. cephadm verify-and-fix-cluster)? I think that option would be much more beneficial than the other two suggested ones. Best regards, Nico -- Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch _______________________________________________ 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
