On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Erik McCormick wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Sage Weil wrote:
> >> Questions:
> >>
> >> - Does anybody on the list use a non-default cluster name?
> >> - If so, do you have a reason not to switch back to 'ceph'?
> >
> > It sounds like the answer is "yes," but not for daemons. Several users use
> > it on the client side to connect to multiple clusters from the same host.
> >
>
> I thought some folks said they were running with non-default naming
> for daemons, but if not, then count me as one who does. This was
> mainly a relic of the past, where I thought I would be running
> multiple clusters on one host. Before long I decided it would be a bad
> idea, but by then the cluster was already in heavy use and I couldn't
> undo it.
>
> I will say that I am not opposed to renaming back to ceph, but it
> would be great to have a documented process for accomplishing this
> prior to deprecation. Even going so far as to remove --cluster from
> deployment tools will leave me unable to add OSDs if I want to upgrade
> when Luminous is released.
Note that even if the tool doesn't support it, the cluster name is a
host-local thing, so you can always deploy ceph-named daemons on other
hosts.
For an existing host, the removal process should be as simple as
- stop the daemons on the host
- rename /etc/ceph/foo.conf -> /etc/ceph/ceph.conf
- rename /var/lib/ceph/*/foo-* -> /var/lib/ceph/*/ceph-* (this mainly
matters for non-osds, since the osd dirs will get dynamically created by
ceph-disk, but renaming will avoid leaving clutter behind)
- comment out the CLUSTER= line in /etc/{sysconfig,default}/ceph (if
you're on jewel)
- reboot
If you wouldn't mind being a guinea pig and verifying that this is
sufficient that would be really helpful! We'll definitely want to
document this process.
Thanks!
sage
>
> > Nobody is colocating multiple daemons from different clusters on the same
> > host. Some have in the past but stopped. If they choose to in the
> > future, they can customize the systemd units themselves.
> >
> > The rbd-mirror daemon has a similar requirement to talk to multiple
> > clusters as a client.
> >
> > This makes me conclude our current path is fine:
> >
> > - leave existing --cluster infrastructure in place in the ceph code, but
> > - remove support for deploying daemons with custom cluster names from the
> > deployment tools.
> >
> > This neatly avoids the systemd limitations for all but the most
> > adventuresome admins and avoid the more common case of an admin falling
> > into the "oh, I can name my cluster? cool! [...] oh, i have to add
> > --cluster rover to every command? ick!" trap.
> >
>
> Yeah, that was me in 2012. Oops.
>
> -Erik
>
> > sage
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
