[rook@rook-ceph-tools-5ff8d58445-gkl5w .aws]$ ceph features
{
"mon": [
{
"features": "0x3f01cfbf7ffdffff",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 3
}
],
"osd": [
{
"features": "0x3f01cfbf7ffdffff",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 600
}
],
"client": [
{
"features": "0x2f018fb87aa4aafe",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 41
},
{
"features": "0x3f01cfbf7ffdffff",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 147
}
],
"mgr": [
{
"features": "0x3f01cfbf7ffdffff",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 2
}
]
}
[rook@rook-ceph-tools-5ff8d58445-gkl5w .aws]$
IIRC there are nuances, there are case where a client can *look* like Jewel but
actually be okay.
> On Dec 21, 2023, at 10:41, Simon Oosthoek <simon.oosth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Our cluster is currently running quincy, and I want to set the minimal
> client version to luminous, to enable upmap balancer, but when I tried to,
> I got this:
>
> # ceph osd set-require-min-compat-client luminous Error EPERM: cannot set
> require_min_compat_client to luminous: 2 connected client(s) look like
> jewel (missing 0x800000000000000); add --yes-i-really-mean-it to do it
> anyway
>
> I think I know the most likely candidate (and I've asked them), but is
> there a way to find out, the way ceph seems to know?
>
> tnx
>
> /Simon
> --
> I'm using my gmail.com address, because the gmail.com dmarc policy is
> "none", some mail servers will reject this (microsoft?) others will instead
> allow this when I send mail to a mailling list which has not yet been
> configured to send mail "on behalf of" the sender, but rather do a kind of
> "forward". The latter situation causes dkim/dmarc failures and the dmarc
> policy will be applied. see https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC for more details
> _______________________________________________
> 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
