You are also making this entire conversation INCREDIBLY difficult to follow by creating so many new email threads instead of sticking with one.
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:48 PM David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your question assumes that ceph-disk was a good piece of software. It had > a bug list a mile long and nobody working on it. A common example was how > simple it was to mess up any part of the dozens of components that allowed > an OSD to autostart on boot. One of the biggest problems was when > ceph-disk was doing it's thing and an OSD would take longer than 3 minutes > to start and ceph-disk would give up on it. > > That is a little bit about why a new solution was sought after and why > ceph-disk is being removed entirely. LVM was a choice made to implement > something other than partitions and udev magic while still incorporating > the information still needed from all of that in a better solution. There > has been a lot of talk about this on the ML. > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:23 PM Marc Roos <m.r...@f1-outsourcing.eu> > wrote: > >> >> What is the reasoning behind switching to lvm? Does it make sense to go >> through (yet) another layer to access the disk? Why creating this >> dependency and added complexity? It is fine as it is, or not? >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
