On 2/23/24 17:19, Friedrich Weber wrote: > On 21/02/2024 14:15, Max Carrara wrote: >> On 2/21/24 12:55, Friedrich Weber wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> - the `ceph-crash` service does not restart after installing the patched >>> ceph-base package, so the reordering done by patches 02+04 does not take >>> effect immediately: ceph-crash posts crash logs just fine, but logs to >>> the journal that it can't find a keyring. After a restart of ceph-crash, >>> the patch takes effect, so only a tiny inconvenience, but still: Not >>> sure if restarting the service is something we'd want to do in a >>> postinst -- is this an acceptable thing to do in a postinst? >> >> Initially the service was being restarted, but that's omitted in the new >> hook, as Fabian and I had noticed that `ceph-crash` just checks for its >> expected keys after its waiting period again anyways. I had unfortunately >> forgotten to put that into the changelog of the postinst hook stuff - >> mea culpa> >> I think restarting the service would be necessary then in order to apply >> the new sequence which keys are checked in, as that's hard-coded in >> `ceph-crash`. >> >> It certainly should be acceptable (as we already do it in some instances), >> as long as we restart it only if the service is enabled. That was part >> of the old BASH function anyway - I don't think there's any harm in adding >> it back (either in BASH or Perl). > > If it's acceptable, I think it would be nice to restart ceph-crash (it > doesn't seem to be restarted that often).
I agree! > >>> - Might there be issues in a mixed-version cluster scenario, so if some >>> node A already has an updated pve-storage package (patches 05-10), but >>> node B doesn't yet? One thing I noticed is that node A will add the >>> [client.crash] section, but node B may remove it again when it needs to >>> rewrite the Ceph config (e.g. when creating a monitor). I don't find >>> this particular issue too concerning, as hopefully node B will be >>> updated eventually as well and reinstate the [client.crash] section. But >>> I wonder if there could be other more serious issues? >> >> The scenario you mentioned might indeed happen somehow, but once all >> nodes are updated - even if the config has been changed inbetween updates - >> the '[client.crash]' section should definitely exist. >> >> One issue that's been fixed by moving things to the Perl helper is that >> simultaneous updates could potentially modify 'ceph.conf' at the same time >> - the Perl helper now locks the file on pmxcfs, so that cannot happen >> anymore. > > Nice! > >> I cannot think of any other scenario at the moment. > > Yeah, me neither. > >> In any case, even if *somehow* 'ceph.conf' ends up not containing the section >> or the keyring file ends up missing, the helper script will be available >> after the update has been performed, so it's possible to just run it again >> manually to adapt the config. >> >> That being said, this reminds me that the '[ceph.crash]' section, the >> location >> of the keyring file, etc. should probably be in our docs as well, so I will >> send in a follow-up series for that (unless this series ends up needing a v4, >> then I'll include it there). >> >> Thanks again for the feedback and the tests you ran! > > Sure! I ran some more tests installing a fresh Reef cluster with the > patched packages, and did not notice any major issues. > > One minor thing I noticed: If a user has manually worked around the > issue by generating a client.crash keyring, and adding a [client.crash] > section, as described in [1]: > > [client.crash] > key = <yourbase64key> > > ... after the upgrade, this user will end up with the following > [client.crash] section: > > [client.crash] > key = <yourbase64key> > keyring = /etc/pve/ceph/$cluster.$name.keyring > > and the same keyring <yourbase64key> in > /etc/pve/ceph/ceph.client.crash.keyring. > > In my test this is not a problem, though (probably since both keys are > the same). > > [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4759#c7 Oh, good catch! I'll correct this in a v4, I think. We want to ensure we're only setting the keyring, in our case. Thanks again for all the tests, much appreciated! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
