Hi, We have the same issue on our lab cluster. The only way I found to have the osds on the new specification was to drain, remove and re-add the host. The orchestrator was happy to recreate the osds under the good specification.
But I do not think this is a good solution for production cluster. We are still looking for a more smooth way to do that. Luis Domingues ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, October 4th, 2021 at 10:01 PM, David Orman <orma...@corenode.com> wrote: > We have an older cluster which has been iterated on many times. It's > > always been cephadm deployed, but I am certain the OSD specification > > used has changed over time. I believe at some point, it may have been > > 'rm'd. > > So here's our current state: > > root@ceph02:/# ceph orch ls osd --export > > service_type: osd > > service_id: osd_spec_foo > > service_name: osd.osd_spec_foo > > placement: > > label: osd > > spec: > > data_devices: > > rotational: 1 > > db_devices: > > rotational: 0 > > db_slots: 12 > > filter_logic: AND > > objectstore: bluestore > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > service_type: osd > > service_id: unmanaged > > service_name: osd.unmanaged > > placement: {} > > unmanaged: true > > spec: > > filter_logic: AND > > objectstore: bluestore > > root@ceph02:/# ceph orch ls > > NAME PORTS RUNNING REFRESHED AGE PLACEMENT > > crash 7/7 10m ago 14M * > > mgr 5/5 10m ago 7M label:mgr > > mon 5/5 10m ago 14M label:mon > > osd.osd_spec_foo 0/7 - 24m label:osd > > osd.unmanaged 167/167 10m ago - <unmanaged> > > The osd_spec_foo would match these devices normally, so we're curious > > how we can get these 'managed' under this service specification. > > What's the appropriate way in order to effectively 'adopt' these > > pre-existing OSDs into the service specification that we want them to > > be managed under? > > 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