Hi,

Having messed up my last RHEL6 Ceph cluster rather spectacularly I decided to 
build again from scratch using the latest versions of the various packages.   
Not having proxy access does make it more of a pfaff to deploy Ceph, but I will 
admit the latest version of ceph-deploy is a vast improvement to earlier 
versions.

That said, I did notice something.

After going through the OSD prepare/activate process with ceph-deploy the last 
step in the "quick start" is to push the admin configuration to all the nodes 
using the "ceph-deploy admin <node1>..." command.
Once complete the quick start documentation states that you need to check the 
file permissions on ceph.client.admin.keyring along with a sudo command to 
change the permissions to allow read access.

Running the "ceph health" after this did not work and I soon discovered I had 
to run the same file permission command on file /etc/ceph/ceph.conf on each 
node as well.   Only then did the "ceph health" command work and report back 
with a "HEALTH_OK".

On the admin node itself, the configuration files prior to running the 
"ceph-deploy admin" command is:

-rw-r--r-- 1 ceph ceph    72 Jan 27 18:34 ceph.bootstrap-mds.keyring
-rw-r--r-- 1 ceph ceph    72 Jan 27 18:34 ceph.bootstrap-osd.keyring
-rw-r--r-- 1 ceph ceph    64 Jan 27 18:34 ceph.client.admin.keyring
-rw-r--r-- 1 ceph ceph   237 Jan 27 17:49 ceph.conf
-rw-r--r-- 1 ceph ceph 54181 Jan 27 18:45 ceph.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 ceph ceph    73 Jan 27 17:49 ceph.mon.keyring

After running "ceph-deploy admin...." The file permissions on the nodes in 
/etc/ceph were as follows:

-rw------- 1 root root  64 Jan 27 18:45 ceph.client.admin.keyring
-rw------- 1 root root 237 Jan 27 18:45 ceph.conf
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root  92 Dec 20 22:47 rbdmap

The exception to this is the admin node itself.   The ceph-deploy admin command 
resulted in the following file permissions on the admin node in /etc/ceph

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  64 Jan 27 19:13 ceph.client.admin.keyring
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 237 Jan 27 19:13 ceph.conf

There seems to be inconsistency here somewhere.   Is this expected behavior?

Cheers
Alistair


_______________________________________________

This message is for information purposes only, it is not a recommendation, 
advice, offer or solicitation to buy or sell a product or service nor an 
official confirmation of any transaction. It is directed at persons who are 
professionals and is not intended for retail customer use. Intended for 
recipient only. This message is subject to the terms at: 
www.barclays.com/emaildisclaimer.

For important disclosures, please see: 
www.barclays.com/salesandtradingdisclaimer regarding market commentary from 
Barclays Sales and/or Trading, who are active market participants; and in 
respect of Barclays Research, including disclosures relating to specific 
issuers, please see http://publicresearch.barclays.com.

_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to