It is possible I misunderstood Sage’s message - I apologize if that’s the case.
This is what made me uncertain: >>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for >>> future bugfix point releases. Decision for new releases (Infernalis, Jewel, K*) regarding distro support should be made officialy somewhere. Not sure if packages for them exist today and where? I don’t think new releases need to be made for CentOS 6 etc., parts of it are just too old for new stuff to make sense. But once that “commitment” is made (like http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ ) I expect them to be “supported" for until the Ceph release itself is EOL. Of course whoever is “freeloading” must be ready for anything, anytime, no promises :-) Jan > On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:47, Mark Nelson <mnel...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Jan, > > From my reading of Sage's email, hammer would continue to be supported on > older distros, but new development would not target those releases. Was that > your impression as well? > > As a former system administrator I feel your pain. Upgrading to new distros > is a ton of work and incurs a ton of uncertainty and potential problems and > liability. I truly think though that we will have a lot more luck testing > and bug fixing new Ceph releases if we can focus specifically on new distro > support and not get distracted with trying to maintain compatability for new > Ceph releases on previous generation LTS distro releases. > > IE it's one thing if we've already tested say Hammer on those distros and > minor bug fixes aren't likely to hit weird lurking kernel or distro bugs that > aren't likely to get fixed. With new releases though, there's a ton of > things we change, and some of them may be tied to expecting certain behavior > in the kernel (Random example: XFS not blowing up with sparse writes when > non-default extent sizes are used). At some point we need to stop make > exceptions for stuff like this because an old kernel may not have a patch or > behavior that we need to move Ceph forward. > > Mark > > On 07/30/2015 09:29 AM, Jan “Zviratko” Schermer wrote: >> I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this >> is not right. >> >> You should /lege artis/ support every distribution the LTS release could >> have >> ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we >> rely on >> once we build a project on top of it >> >> CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, >> enterprise >> apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining >> their LTS >> Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly. >> We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS >> because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those >> vendors, maybe... >> >> Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding >> edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work. >> >> Just my 2 cents... >> >> Jan >> >>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com >>> <mailto:sw...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper >>> builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the >>> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for >>> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to >>> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work. >>> >>> "Dropping" them would mean: >>> >>> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and >>> jewel) would not be tested on these distros. >>> >>> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com >>> <http://ceph.com> for new >>> releases. >>> >>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for >>> future bugfix point releases. >>> >>> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the >>> burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on >>> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the >>> packaging and/or build environment to make it work. >>> >>> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros. >>> Specifically, >>> >>> CentOS6 / RHEL6 >>> Ubuntu precise 12.04 >>> Debian wheezy >>> >>> Would anyone miss them? >>> >>> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit >>> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing >>> upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The >>> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry >>> about packaging and testing them properly.) >>> >>> Thanks! >>> sage >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto: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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
