Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On 11/30/17 14:04, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > point is - you should not purposefully attempt to annoy users and/or > downstreams by changing behaviour in the middle of an LTS release cycle, exactly. upgrading the patch level (x.y.z to x.y.z+1) should imho never introduce a behaviour-change, regardless if it's "just" adding new warnings or not. this is a stable update we're talking about, even more so since it's an LTS release. you never know how people use stuff (e.g. by parsing stupid things), so such behaviour-change will break stuff for *some* people (granted, most likely a really low number). my expection to an stable release is, that it stays, literally, stable. that's the whole point of having it in the first place. otherwise we would all be running git snapshots and update randomly to newer ones. adding deprecation messages in mimic makes sense, and getting rid of it/not provide support for it in mimic+1 is reasonable. Regards, Daniel ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 07:04:33AM -0500, Alfredo Deza wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Fabian Grünbichler > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:39:31AM -0800, Vasu Kulkarni wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Turner > >> wrote: > >> > Isn't marking something as deprecated meaning that there is a better > >> > option > >> > that we want you to use and you should switch to it sooner than later? I > >> > don't understand how this is ready to be marked as such if ceph-volume > >> > can't > >> > be switched to for all supported use cases. If ZFS, encryption, FreeBSD, > >> > etc > >> > are all going to be supported under ceph-volume, then how can ceph-disk > >> > be > >> > deprecated before ceph-volume can support them? I can imagine many Ceph > >> > admins wasting time chasing an erroneous deprecated warning because it > >> > came > >> > out before the new solution was mature enough to replace the existing > >> > solution. > >> > >> There is no need to worry about this deprecation, Its mostly for > >> admins to be prepared > >> for the changes coming ahead and its mostly for *new* installations > >> that can plan on using ceph-volume which provides > >> great flexibility compared to ceph-disk. > > > > changing existing installations to output deprecation warnings from one > > minor release to the next means it is not just for new installations > > though, no matter how you spin it. a mention in the release notes and > > docs would be enough to get admins to test and use ceph-volume on new > > installations. > > > > I am pretty sure many admins will be bothered by all nodes running OSDs > > spamming the logs and their terminals with huge deprecation warnings on > > each OSD activation[1] or other actions involving ceph-disk, and having > > this state for the remainder of Luminous unless they switch to a new > > (and as of yet not battle-tested) way of activating their OSDs seems > > crazy to me. > > > > I know our users will be, and given the short notice and huge impact > > this would have we will likely have to remove the deprecation warnings > > altogether in our (downstream) packages until we have completed testing > > of and implementing support for ceph-volume.. > > > >> > >> a) many dont use ceph-disk or ceph-volume directly, so the tool you > >> have right now eg: ceph-deploy or ceph-ansible > >> will still support the ceph-disk, the previous ceph-deploy release is > >> still available from pypi > >> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ceph-deploy > > > > we have >> 10k (user / customer managed!) installations on Ceph Luminous > > alone, all using our wrapper around ceph-disk - changing something like > > this in the middle of a release causes huge headaches for downstreams > > like us, and is not how a stable project is supposed to be run. > > If you are using a wrapper around ceph-disk, then silencing the > deprecation warnings should be easy to do. > > These are plain Python warnings, and can be silenced within Python or > environment variables. There are some details > on how to do that here https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/18989 the problem is not how to get rid of the warnings, but having to when upgrading from one bug fix release to the next. > > > >> > >> b) also the current push will help anyone who is using ceph-deploy or > >> ceph-disk in scripts/chef/etc > >>to have time to think about using newer cli based on ceph-volume > > > > a regular deprecate at the beginning of the release cycle were the > > replacement is deemed stable, remove in the next release cycle would be > > adequate for this purpose. > > > > I don't understand the rush to shoe-horn ceph-volume into existing > > supposedly stable Ceph installations at all - especially given the > > current state of ceph-volume (we'll file bugs once we are done writing > > them up, but a quick rudimentary test already showed stuff like choking > > on valid ceph.conf files because they contain leading whitespace and > > incomplete error handling leading to crush map entries for failed OSD > > creation attempts). > > Any ceph-volume bugs are welcomed as soon as you can get them to us. > Waiting to get them reported is a problem, since ceph-volume > is tied to Ceph releases, it means that these will now have to wait > for another point release instead of having them in the upcoming one. we started evaluating ceph-volume at the start of this thread in order to see whether a switch-over pre-Mimic is feasible. we don't artificially delay bug reports, it just takes time to to test, find bugs and report them properly. > > > > > I DO understand the motivation behind ceph-volume and the desire to get > > rid of the udev-based trigger mess, but the solution is not to scare > > users into switching in the middle of a release by introducing > > deprecation warnings for a core piece of the deployment stack. > > > > IMHO the only reason to push or force such a switch in this manner would > > be a (grave) security or
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:39:31AM -0800, Vasu Kulkarni wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Turner wrote: >> > Isn't marking something as deprecated meaning that there is a better option >> > that we want you to use and you should switch to it sooner than later? I >> > don't understand how this is ready to be marked as such if ceph-volume >> > can't >> > be switched to for all supported use cases. If ZFS, encryption, FreeBSD, >> > etc >> > are all going to be supported under ceph-volume, then how can ceph-disk be >> > deprecated before ceph-volume can support them? I can imagine many Ceph >> > admins wasting time chasing an erroneous deprecated warning because it came >> > out before the new solution was mature enough to replace the existing >> > solution. >> >> There is no need to worry about this deprecation, Its mostly for >> admins to be prepared >> for the changes coming ahead and its mostly for *new* installations >> that can plan on using ceph-volume which provides >> great flexibility compared to ceph-disk. > > changing existing installations to output deprecation warnings from one > minor release to the next means it is not just for new installations > though, no matter how you spin it. a mention in the release notes and > docs would be enough to get admins to test and use ceph-volume on new > installations. > > I am pretty sure many admins will be bothered by all nodes running OSDs > spamming the logs and their terminals with huge deprecation warnings on > each OSD activation[1] or other actions involving ceph-disk, and having > this state for the remainder of Luminous unless they switch to a new > (and as of yet not battle-tested) way of activating their OSDs seems > crazy to me. > > I know our users will be, and given the short notice and huge impact > this would have we will likely have to remove the deprecation warnings > altogether in our (downstream) packages until we have completed testing > of and implementing support for ceph-volume.. > >> >> a) many dont use ceph-disk or ceph-volume directly, so the tool you >> have right now eg: ceph-deploy or ceph-ansible >> will still support the ceph-disk, the previous ceph-deploy release is >> still available from pypi >> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ceph-deploy > > we have >> 10k (user / customer managed!) installations on Ceph Luminous > alone, all using our wrapper around ceph-disk - changing something like > this in the middle of a release causes huge headaches for downstreams > like us, and is not how a stable project is supposed to be run. If you are using a wrapper around ceph-disk, then silencing the deprecation warnings should be easy to do. These are plain Python warnings, and can be silenced within Python or environment variables. There are some details on how to do that here https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/18989 > >> >> b) also the current push will help anyone who is using ceph-deploy or >> ceph-disk in scripts/chef/etc >>to have time to think about using newer cli based on ceph-volume > > a regular deprecate at the beginning of the release cycle were the > replacement is deemed stable, remove in the next release cycle would be > adequate for this purpose. > > I don't understand the rush to shoe-horn ceph-volume into existing > supposedly stable Ceph installations at all - especially given the > current state of ceph-volume (we'll file bugs once we are done writing > them up, but a quick rudimentary test already showed stuff like choking > on valid ceph.conf files because they contain leading whitespace and > incomplete error handling leading to crush map entries for failed OSD > creation attempts). Any ceph-volume bugs are welcomed as soon as you can get them to us. Waiting to get them reported is a problem, since ceph-volume is tied to Ceph releases, it means that these will now have to wait for another point release instead of having them in the upcoming one. > > I DO understand the motivation behind ceph-volume and the desire to get > rid of the udev-based trigger mess, but the solution is not to scare > users into switching in the middle of a release by introducing > deprecation warnings for a core piece of the deployment stack. > > IMHO the only reason to push or force such a switch in this manner would > be a (grave) security or data corruption bug, which is not the case at > all here.. There is no forcing here. A deprecation warning was added, which can be silenced. > > 1: have you looked at the journal / boot logs of a mid-sized OSD node > using ceph-disk for activation with the deprecation warning active? if > my boot log is suddenly filled with 20% warnings, my first reaction will > be that something is very wrong.. my likely second reaction when > realizing what is going on is probably not fit for posting to a public > mailing list ;) The purpose of the deprecation warning is to be annoying as you imply here, and again, there are me
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:39:31AM -0800, Vasu Kulkarni wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Turner wrote: > > Isn't marking something as deprecated meaning that there is a better option > > that we want you to use and you should switch to it sooner than later? I > > don't understand how this is ready to be marked as such if ceph-volume can't > > be switched to for all supported use cases. If ZFS, encryption, FreeBSD, etc > > are all going to be supported under ceph-volume, then how can ceph-disk be > > deprecated before ceph-volume can support them? I can imagine many Ceph > > admins wasting time chasing an erroneous deprecated warning because it came > > out before the new solution was mature enough to replace the existing > > solution. > > There is no need to worry about this deprecation, Its mostly for > admins to be prepared > for the changes coming ahead and its mostly for *new* installations > that can plan on using ceph-volume which provides > great flexibility compared to ceph-disk. changing existing installations to output deprecation warnings from one minor release to the next means it is not just for new installations though, no matter how you spin it. a mention in the release notes and docs would be enough to get admins to test and use ceph-volume on new installations. I am pretty sure many admins will be bothered by all nodes running OSDs spamming the logs and their terminals with huge deprecation warnings on each OSD activation[1] or other actions involving ceph-disk, and having this state for the remainder of Luminous unless they switch to a new (and as of yet not battle-tested) way of activating their OSDs seems crazy to me. I know our users will be, and given the short notice and huge impact this would have we will likely have to remove the deprecation warnings altogether in our (downstream) packages until we have completed testing of and implementing support for ceph-volume.. > > a) many dont use ceph-disk or ceph-volume directly, so the tool you > have right now eg: ceph-deploy or ceph-ansible > will still support the ceph-disk, the previous ceph-deploy release is > still available from pypi > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ceph-deploy we have >> 10k (user / customer managed!) installations on Ceph Luminous alone, all using our wrapper around ceph-disk - changing something like this in the middle of a release causes huge headaches for downstreams like us, and is not how a stable project is supposed to be run. > > b) also the current push will help anyone who is using ceph-deploy or > ceph-disk in scripts/chef/etc >to have time to think about using newer cli based on ceph-volume a regular deprecate at the beginning of the release cycle were the replacement is deemed stable, remove in the next release cycle would be adequate for this purpose. I don't understand the rush to shoe-horn ceph-volume into existing supposedly stable Ceph installations at all - especially given the current state of ceph-volume (we'll file bugs once we are done writing them up, but a quick rudimentary test already showed stuff like choking on valid ceph.conf files because they contain leading whitespace and incomplete error handling leading to crush map entries for failed OSD creation attempts). I DO understand the motivation behind ceph-volume and the desire to get rid of the udev-based trigger mess, but the solution is not to scare users into switching in the middle of a release by introducing deprecation warnings for a core piece of the deployment stack. IMHO the only reason to push or force such a switch in this manner would be a (grave) security or data corruption bug, which is not the case at all here.. 1: have you looked at the journal / boot logs of a mid-sized OSD node using ceph-disk for activation with the deprecation warning active? if my boot log is suddenly filled with 20% warnings, my first reaction will be that something is very wrong.. my likely second reaction when realizing what is going on is probably not fit for posting to a public mailing list ;) ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
Le 27/11/2017 à 14:36, Alfredo Deza a écrit : > For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be > officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with > deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise > awareness. > > We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD > deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs > and FreeBSD systems > > Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. > > A few items to consider: > > * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release > * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] > * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it > * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon > > > [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Is that possible to update the "add-or-rm-osds" documentation to have also the process with ceph-volume. That would help to the adoption. http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/add-or-rm-osds/ This page should be updated as well with ceph-volume command. http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/bluestore-migration/ Documentation (at least for master, maybe for luminous) should keep both options (ceph-disk and ceph-volume) but with a warning message to encourage people to use ceph-volume instead of ceph-disk. I agree with comments here that say changing the status of ceph-disk as deprecated in a minor release is not what I expect for a stable storage systems but I also understand the necessity to move forward with ceph-volume (and bluestore). I think keeping ceph-disk in mimic is necessary, even though there is no update, just for compatibility with old scripts. -- Yoann Moulin EPFL IC-IT ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Turner wrote: > Isn't marking something as deprecated meaning that there is a better option > that we want you to use and you should switch to it sooner than later? I > don't understand how this is ready to be marked as such if ceph-volume can't > be switched to for all supported use cases. If ZFS, encryption, FreeBSD, etc > are all going to be supported under ceph-volume, then how can ceph-disk be > deprecated before ceph-volume can support them? I can imagine many Ceph > admins wasting time chasing an erroneous deprecated warning because it came > out before the new solution was mature enough to replace the existing > solution. There is no need to worry about this deprecation, Its mostly for admins to be prepared for the changes coming ahead and its mostly for *new* installations that can plan on using ceph-volume which provides great flexibility compared to ceph-disk. a) many dont use ceph-disk or ceph-volume directly, so the tool you have right now eg: ceph-deploy or ceph-ansible will still support the ceph-disk, the previous ceph-deploy release is still available from pypi https://pypi.python.org/pypi/ceph-deploy b) also the current push will help anyone who is using ceph-deploy or ceph-disk in scripts/chef/etc to have time to think about using newer cli based on ceph-volume > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM Willem Jan Withagen wrote: >> >> On 28-11-2017 13:32, Alfredo Deza wrote: >> > >> > I understand that this would involve a significant effort to fully >> > port over and drop ceph-disk entirely, and I don't think that dropping >> > ceph-disk in Mimic is set in stone (yet). >> >> Alfredo, >> >> When I expressed my concers about deprecating ceph-disk, I was led to >> beleive that I had atleast two release cycles to come up with something >> of a 'ceph-volume zfs ' >> >> Reading this, there is a possibility that it will get dropped IN mimic? >> Which means that there is less than 1 release cycle to get it working? >> >> Thanx, >> --WjW >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
Isn't marking something as deprecated meaning that there is a better option that we want you to use and you should switch to it sooner than later? I don't understand how this is ready to be marked as such if ceph-volume can't be switched to for all supported use cases. If ZFS, encryption, FreeBSD, etc are all going to be supported under ceph-volume, then how can ceph-disk be deprecated before ceph-volume can support them? I can imagine many Ceph admins wasting time chasing an erroneous deprecated warning because it came out before the new solution was mature enough to replace the existing solution. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > On 28-11-2017 13:32, Alfredo Deza wrote: > > > > I understand that this would involve a significant effort to fully > > port over and drop ceph-disk entirely, and I don't think that dropping > > ceph-disk in Mimic is set in stone (yet). > > Alfredo, > > When I expressed my concers about deprecating ceph-disk, I was led to > beleive that I had atleast two release cycles to come up with something > of a 'ceph-volume zfs ' > > Reading this, there is a possibility that it will get dropped IN mimic? > Which means that there is less than 1 release cycle to get it working? > > Thanx, > --WjW > > > ___ > 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
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On 28-11-2017 13:32, Alfredo Deza wrote: I understand that this would involve a significant effort to fully port over and drop ceph-disk entirely, and I don't think that dropping ceph-disk in Mimic is set in stone (yet). Alfredo, When I expressed my concers about deprecating ceph-disk, I was led to beleive that I had atleast two release cycles to come up with something of a 'ceph-volume zfs ' Reading this, there is a possibility that it will get dropped IN mimic? Which means that there is less than 1 release cycle to get it working? Thanx, --WjW ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On 11/28/2017 12:52 PM, Alfredo Deza wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote: On 11/28/2017 11:54 AM, Alfredo Deza wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise awareness. As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded to a new major version. ceph-volume has been present since the very first release of Luminous, the deprecation warning in ceph-disk is the only "new" thing introduced for 12.2.2. I think Wido's question still stands: why can't ceph-disk be deprecated solely in M, and removed by N? Like I mentioned, I don't think this is set in stone (yet), but it was the idea from the beginning (See Oct 9th thread "killing ceph-disk"), and I don't think it would be terribly bad to keep ceph-disk in Mimic, but fully frozen, with no updates or bug fixes. And full removal in N The deprecation warnings need to stay for Luminous though. I can live with this, granted Luminous still sees bug fixes despite the deprecation warning - but I'm guessing that's what you meant by only fully freezing in Mimic :). Thanks. -Joao ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
Thanks! I'll start looking into rebuilding my roles once 12.2.2 is out then. On 28 November 2017 at 13:37, Alfredo Deza wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Andreas Calminder > wrote: >>> For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just >>> a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* >>> OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes >>> for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, >>> and block.wal as those >>> can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not >>> create these for you). >> >> Ok, so if I understand this correctly, for future one-device-per-osd >> setups I would create a volume group per device before handing it over >> to ceph-volume, to get the "same" functionality as ceph-disk. I >> understand the flexibility aspect of this, my setup will have an extra >> step setting up lvm for my osd devices which is fine. > > If you don't require any special configuration for your logical volume > and don't mind a naive LV handling, then ceph-volume can create > the logical volume for you from either a partition or a device (for > data), although it will still require a GPT partition for Journals, > block.wal, and block.db > > For example: > > ceph-volume lvm create --data /path/to/device > > Would create a new volume group with the device and then produce a > single LV from it. > >> Apologies if I >> missed the information, but is it possible to get command output as >> json, something like "ceph-disk list --format json" since it's quite >> helpful while setting up stuff through ansible > > Yes, this is implemented in both "pretty" and JSON formats: > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/lvm/list/#ceph-volume-lvm-list >> >> Thanks, >> Andreas >> >> On 28 November 2017 at 12:47, Alfredo Deza wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Andreas Calminder >>> wrote: Hello, Thanks for the heads-up. As someone who's currently maintaining a Jewel cluster and are in the process of setting up a shiny new Luminous cluster and writing Ansible roles in the process to make setup reproducible. I immediately proceeded to look into ceph-volume and I've some questions/concerns, mainly due to my own setup, which is one osd per device, simple. Running ceph-volume in Luminous 12.2.1 suggests there's only the lvm subcommand available and the man-page only covers lvm. The online documentation http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/ lists simple however it's lacking some of the ceph-disk commands, like 'prepare' which seems crucial in the 'simple' scenario. Does the ceph-disk deprecation imply that lvm is mandatory for using devices with ceph or is just the documentation and tool features lagging behind, I.E the 'simple' parts will be added well in time for Mimic and during the Luminous lifecycle? Or am I missing something? >>> >>> In your case, all your existing OSDs will be able to be managed by >>> `ceph-volume` once scanned and the information persisted. So anything >>> from Jewel should still work. For 12.2.1 you are right, that command >>> is not yet available, it will be present in 12.2.2 >>> >>> For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just >>> a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* >>> OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes >>> for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, >>> and block.wal as those >>> can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not >>> create these for you). >>> Best regards, Andreas On 27 November 2017 at 14:36, Alfredo Deza wrote: > For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be > officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with > deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise > awareness. > > We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD > deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs > and FreeBSD systems > > Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. > > A few items to consider: > > * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release > * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] > * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default > to it > * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon > > > [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ ceph-users ma
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote: > On 11/28/2017 11:54 AM, Alfredo Deza wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >>> >>> Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise awareness. >>> >>> As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a >>> good idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? >>> >>> Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the >>> release of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing >>> integrations will have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they >>> haven't upgraded to a new major version. >> >> >> ceph-volume has been present since the very first release of Luminous, >> the deprecation warning in ceph-disk is the only "new" thing >> introduced for 12.2.2. > > > I think Wido's question still stands: why can't ceph-disk be deprecated > solely in M, and removed by N? Like I mentioned, I don't think this is set in stone (yet), but it was the idea from the beginning (See Oct 9th thread "killing ceph-disk"), and I don't think it would be terribly bad to keep ceph-disk in Mimic, but fully frozen, with no updates or bug fixes. And full removal in N The deprecation warnings need to stay for Luminous though. > > I get that it probably seems nuts to support ceph-disk and ceph-volume; and > by deprecating and removing in (less than) a full release cycle will force > people to actually move from one to the other. But we're also doing it when > roughly 4 months away from Mimic being frozen. > > This is the sort of last minute overall, core, changes that are not expected > from a project that should be as mature as Ceph. This is not some internal > feature that users won't notice - we're effectively changing the way users > deploy and orchestrate their clusters. > > > -Joao ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On 11/28/2017 11:54 AM, Alfredo Deza wrote: On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise awareness. As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded to a new major version. ceph-volume has been present since the very first release of Luminous, the deprecation warning in ceph-disk is the only "new" thing introduced for 12.2.2. I think Wido's question still stands: why can't ceph-disk be deprecated solely in M, and removed by N? I get that it probably seems nuts to support ceph-disk and ceph-volume; and by deprecating and removing in (less than) a full release cycle will force people to actually move from one to the other. But we're also doing it when roughly 4 months away from Mimic being frozen. This is the sort of last minute overall, core, changes that are not expected from a project that should be as mature as Ceph. This is not some internal feature that users won't notice - we're effectively changing the way users deploy and orchestrate their clusters. -Joao ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Andreas Calminder wrote: >> For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just >> a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* >> OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes >> for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, >> and block.wal as those >> can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not >> create these for you). > > Ok, so if I understand this correctly, for future one-device-per-osd > setups I would create a volume group per device before handing it over > to ceph-volume, to get the "same" functionality as ceph-disk. I > understand the flexibility aspect of this, my setup will have an extra > step setting up lvm for my osd devices which is fine. If you don't require any special configuration for your logical volume and don't mind a naive LV handling, then ceph-volume can create the logical volume for you from either a partition or a device (for data), although it will still require a GPT partition for Journals, block.wal, and block.db For example: ceph-volume lvm create --data /path/to/device Would create a new volume group with the device and then produce a single LV from it. > Apologies if I > missed the information, but is it possible to get command output as > json, something like "ceph-disk list --format json" since it's quite > helpful while setting up stuff through ansible Yes, this is implemented in both "pretty" and JSON formats: http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/lvm/list/#ceph-volume-lvm-list > > Thanks, > Andreas > > On 28 November 2017 at 12:47, Alfredo Deza wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Andreas Calminder >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> Thanks for the heads-up. As someone who's currently maintaining a >>> Jewel cluster and are in the process of setting up a shiny new >>> Luminous cluster and writing Ansible roles in the process to make >>> setup reproducible. I immediately proceeded to look into ceph-volume >>> and I've some questions/concerns, mainly due to my own setup, which is >>> one osd per device, simple. >>> >>> Running ceph-volume in Luminous 12.2.1 suggests there's only the lvm >>> subcommand available and the man-page only covers lvm. The online >>> documentation http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/ lists >>> simple however it's lacking some of the ceph-disk commands, like >>> 'prepare' which seems crucial in the 'simple' scenario. Does the >>> ceph-disk deprecation imply that lvm is mandatory for using devices >>> with ceph or is just the documentation and tool features lagging >>> behind, I.E the 'simple' parts will be added well in time for Mimic >>> and during the Luminous lifecycle? Or am I missing something? >> >> In your case, all your existing OSDs will be able to be managed by >> `ceph-volume` once scanned and the information persisted. So anything >> from Jewel should still work. For 12.2.1 you are right, that command >> is not yet available, it will be present in 12.2.2 >> >> For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just >> a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* >> OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes >> for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, >> and block.wal as those >> can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not >> create these for you). >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 14:36, Alfredo Deza wrote: For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise awareness. We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs and FreeBSD systems Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. A few items to consider: * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Piotr Dałek wrote: > On 17-11-28 09:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> >> >>> Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : >>> >>> >>> For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be >>> officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with >>> deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise >>> awareness. >>> >> >> As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good >> idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? >> >> Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release >> of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will >> have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded >> to a new major version. >> >> As ceph-deploy doesn't support ceph-disk either I don't think it's a good >> idea to deprecate it right now. >> >> How do others feel about this? > > > Same, although we don't have a *big* problem with this (we haven't upgraded > to Luminous yet, so we can skip to next point release and move to > ceph-volume together with Luminous). It's still a problem, though - now we > have more of our infrastructure to migrate and test, meaning even more > delays in production upgrades. I understand that this would involve a significant effort to fully port over and drop ceph-disk entirely, and I don't think that dropping ceph-disk in Mimic is set in stone (yet). We could treat Luminous as a "soft" deprecation where ceph-disk will still receive bug-fixes, and then in Mimic, it would be frozen - with no updates whatsoever. At some point a migration will have to happen for older clusters, which is why we've added support in ceph-volume for existing OSDs. An upgrade to Luminous doesn't mean ceph-disk will not work, the only thing that has been added to ceph-disk is a deprecation warning. > > -- > Piotr Dałek > piotr.da...@corp.ovh.com > https://www.ovh.com/us/ > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
> Op 28 november 2017 om 12:54 schreef Alfredo Deza : > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > > >> Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : > >> > >> > >> For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be > >> officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with > >> deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise > >> awareness. > >> > > > > As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good > > idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? > > > > Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release > > of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations > > will have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't > > upgraded to a new major version. > > ceph-volume has been present since the very first release of Luminous, > the deprecation warning in ceph-disk is the only "new" thing > introduced for 12.2.2. > Yes, but deprecating a functional tool in a minor release? Yes, I am aware that ceph-volume works, but suddenly during a release saying it's now deprecated? Why can't that be moved to the M release? Leave ceph-disk as-is and deprecate it in master. Again, I really do like ceph-volume! Great work! Wido > > > > As ceph-deploy doesn't support ceph-disk either I don't think it's a good > > idea to deprecate it right now. > > ceph-deploy work is being done to support ceph-volume exclusively > (ceph-disk support is dropped fully), which will mean a change in its > API in a non-backwards compatible > way. A major version change in ceph-deploy, documentation, and a bunch > of documentation is being worked on to allow users to transition to > it. > > > > > How do others feel about this? > > > > Wido > > > >> We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD > >> deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs > >> and FreeBSD systems > >> > >> Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. > >> > >> A few items to consider: > >> > >> * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release > >> * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] > >> * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to > >> it > >> * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon > >> > >> > >> [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ > >> ___ > >> 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
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
> For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just > a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* > OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes > for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, > and block.wal as those > can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not > create these for you). Ok, so if I understand this correctly, for future one-device-per-osd setups I would create a volume group per device before handing it over to ceph-volume, to get the "same" functionality as ceph-disk. I understand the flexibility aspect of this, my setup will have an extra step setting up lvm for my osd devices which is fine. Apologies if I missed the information, but is it possible to get command output as json, something like "ceph-disk list --format json" since it's quite helpful while setting up stuff through ansible Thanks, Andreas On 28 November 2017 at 12:47, Alfredo Deza wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Andreas Calminder > wrote: >> Hello, >> Thanks for the heads-up. As someone who's currently maintaining a >> Jewel cluster and are in the process of setting up a shiny new >> Luminous cluster and writing Ansible roles in the process to make >> setup reproducible. I immediately proceeded to look into ceph-volume >> and I've some questions/concerns, mainly due to my own setup, which is >> one osd per device, simple. >> >> Running ceph-volume in Luminous 12.2.1 suggests there's only the lvm >> subcommand available and the man-page only covers lvm. The online >> documentation http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/ lists >> simple however it's lacking some of the ceph-disk commands, like >> 'prepare' which seems crucial in the 'simple' scenario. Does the >> ceph-disk deprecation imply that lvm is mandatory for using devices >> with ceph or is just the documentation and tool features lagging >> behind, I.E the 'simple' parts will be added well in time for Mimic >> and during the Luminous lifecycle? Or am I missing something? > > In your case, all your existing OSDs will be able to be managed by > `ceph-volume` once scanned and the information persisted. So anything > from Jewel should still work. For 12.2.1 you are right, that command > is not yet available, it will be present in 12.2.2 > > For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just > a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* > OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes > for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, > and block.wal as those > can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not > create these for you). > >> >> Best regards, >> Andreas >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 14:36, Alfredo Deza wrote: >>> For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be >>> officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with >>> deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise >>> awareness. >>> >>> We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD >>> deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs >>> and FreeBSD systems >>> >>> Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. >>> >>> A few items to consider: >>> >>> * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release >>> * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] >>> * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to >>> it >>> * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon >>> >>> >>> [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
I tend to agree with Wido. May of us still reply on ceph-disk and hope to see it live a little longer. Maged On 2017-11-28 13:54, Alfredo Deza wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : > > For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be > officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with > deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise > awareness. > > As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good > idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? > > Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release of > M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will > have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded to > a new major version. ceph-volume has been present since the very first release of Luminous, the deprecation warning in ceph-disk is the only "new" thing introduced for 12.2.2. > As ceph-deploy doesn't support ceph-disk either I don't think it's a good > idea to deprecate it right now. ceph-deploy work is being done to support ceph-volume exclusively (ceph-disk support is dropped fully), which will mean a change in its API in a non-backwards compatible way. A major version change in ceph-deploy, documentation, and a bunch of documentation is being worked on to allow users to transition to it. > How do others feel about this? > > Wido > >> We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD >> deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs >> and FreeBSD systems >> >> Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. >> >> A few items to consider: >> >> * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release >> * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0 >> [1]] >> * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it >> * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon >> >> [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ >> ___ >> 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 Links: -- [1] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > >> Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : >> >> >> For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be >> officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with >> deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise >> awareness. >> > > As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good > idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? > > Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release of > M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will > have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded to > a new major version. ceph-volume has been present since the very first release of Luminous, the deprecation warning in ceph-disk is the only "new" thing introduced for 12.2.2. > > As ceph-deploy doesn't support ceph-disk either I don't think it's a good > idea to deprecate it right now. ceph-deploy work is being done to support ceph-volume exclusively (ceph-disk support is dropped fully), which will mean a change in its API in a non-backwards compatible way. A major version change in ceph-deploy, documentation, and a bunch of documentation is being worked on to allow users to transition to it. > > How do others feel about this? > > Wido > >> We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD >> deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs >> and FreeBSD systems >> >> Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. >> >> A few items to consider: >> >> * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release >> * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] >> * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it >> * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon >> >> >> [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ >> ___ >> 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
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Andreas Calminder wrote: > Hello, > Thanks for the heads-up. As someone who's currently maintaining a > Jewel cluster and are in the process of setting up a shiny new > Luminous cluster and writing Ansible roles in the process to make > setup reproducible. I immediately proceeded to look into ceph-volume > and I've some questions/concerns, mainly due to my own setup, which is > one osd per device, simple. > > Running ceph-volume in Luminous 12.2.1 suggests there's only the lvm > subcommand available and the man-page only covers lvm. The online > documentation http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/ lists > simple however it's lacking some of the ceph-disk commands, like > 'prepare' which seems crucial in the 'simple' scenario. Does the > ceph-disk deprecation imply that lvm is mandatory for using devices > with ceph or is just the documentation and tool features lagging > behind, I.E the 'simple' parts will be added well in time for Mimic > and during the Luminous lifecycle? Or am I missing something? In your case, all your existing OSDs will be able to be managed by `ceph-volume` once scanned and the information persisted. So anything from Jewel should still work. For 12.2.1 you are right, that command is not yet available, it will be present in 12.2.2 For the `simple` sub-command there is no prepare/activate, it is just a way of taking over management of an already deployed OSD. For *new* OSDs, yes, we are implying that we are going only with Logical Volumes for data devices. It is a bit more flexible for Journals, block.db, and block.wal as those can be either logical volumes or GPT partitions (ceph-volume will not create these for you). > > Best regards, > Andreas > > On 27 November 2017 at 14:36, Alfredo Deza wrote: >> For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be >> officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with >> deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise >> awareness. >> >> We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD >> deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs >> and FreeBSD systems >> >> Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. >> >> A few items to consider: >> >> * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release >> * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] >> * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it >> * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon >> >> >> [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
On 17-11-28 09:12 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise awareness. As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded to a new major version. As ceph-deploy doesn't support ceph-disk either I don't think it's a good idea to deprecate it right now. How do others feel about this? Same, although we don't have a *big* problem with this (we haven't upgraded to Luminous yet, so we can skip to next point release and move to ceph-volume together with Luminous). It's still a problem, though - now we have more of our infrastructure to migrate and test, meaning even more delays in production upgrades. -- Piotr Dałek piotr.da...@corp.ovh.com https://www.ovh.com/us/ ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
> Op 27 november 2017 om 14:36 schreef Alfredo Deza : > > > For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be > officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with > deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise > awareness. > As much as I like ceph-volume and the work being done, is it really a good idea to use a minor release to deprecate a tool? Can't we just introduce ceph-volume and deprecate ceph-disk at the release of M? Because when you upgrade to 12.2.2 suddenly existing integrations will have deprecation warnings being thrown at them while they haven't upgraded to a new major version. As ceph-deploy doesn't support ceph-disk either I don't think it's a good idea to deprecate it right now. How do others feel about this? Wido > We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD > deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs > and FreeBSD systems > > Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. > > A few items to consider: > > * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release > * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] > * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it > * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon > > > [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ > ___ > 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
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
Hello, Thanks for the heads-up. As someone who's currently maintaining a Jewel cluster and are in the process of setting up a shiny new Luminous cluster and writing Ansible roles in the process to make setup reproducible. I immediately proceeded to look into ceph-volume and I've some questions/concerns, mainly due to my own setup, which is one osd per device, simple. Running ceph-volume in Luminous 12.2.1 suggests there's only the lvm subcommand available and the man-page only covers lvm. The online documentation http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/ lists simple however it's lacking some of the ceph-disk commands, like 'prepare' which seems crucial in the 'simple' scenario. Does the ceph-disk deprecation imply that lvm is mandatory for using devices with ceph or is just the documentation and tool features lagging behind, I.E the 'simple' parts will be added well in time for Mimic and during the Luminous lifecycle? Or am I missing something? Best regards, Andreas On 27 November 2017 at 14:36, Alfredo Deza wrote: > For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be > officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with > deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise > awareness. > > We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD > deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs > and FreeBSD systems > > Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. > > A few items to consider: > > * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release > * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] > * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it > * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon > > > [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
[ceph-users] ceph-disk is now deprecated
For the upcoming Luminous release (12.2.2), ceph-disk will be officially in 'deprecated' mode (bug fixes only). A large banner with deprecation information has been added, which will try to raise awareness. We are strongly suggesting using ceph-volume for new (and old) OSD deployments. The only current exceptions to this are encrypted OSDs and FreeBSD systems Encryption support is planned and will be coming soon to ceph-volume. A few items to consider: * ceph-disk is expected to be fully removed by the Mimic release * Existing OSDs are supported by ceph-volume. They can be "taken over" [0] * ceph-ansible already fully supports ceph-volume and will soon default to it * ceph-deploy support is planned and should be fully implemented soon [0] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/ceph-volume/simple/ ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
