Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
Quoting Alfredo Deza (ad...@redhat.com): > > Looks like there is a tag in there that broke it. Lets follow up on a > tracker issue so that we don't hijack this thread? > > http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-volume/issues/new Issue 22305 made for this: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/22305 You are right, sorry for hijacking this thread. Gr. Stefan P.s. co-worker of Dennis Lijnsveld -- | BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / i...@bit.nl ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Stefan Koomanwrote: > Quoting Fabian Grünbichler (f.gruenbich...@proxmox.com): >> I think the above roadmap is a good compromise for all involved parties, >> and I hope we can use the remainder of Luminous to prepare for a >> seam- and painless transition to ceph-volume in time for the Mimic >> release, and then finally retire ceph-disk for good! > > Will the upcoming 12.2.2 release ship with a ceph-volume capable of > doing bluestore on top of LVM? Yes, see the open pr for it (https://github.com/ceph/ceph-deploy/pull/455) > Eager to use ceph-volume for that, and > skip entirely over ceph-disk and our manual osd prepare process ... Now please note that the API will change in a non backwards compatible way, so a major release of ceph-deploy will be done after that is merged. > > Gr. Stefan > > -- > | BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 > | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / i...@bit.nl ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Dennis Lijnsveldwrote: > On 12/01/2017 01:45 PM, Alfredo Deza wrote: >>> Will the upcoming 12.2.2 release ship with a ceph-volume capable of >>> doing bluestore on top of LVM? Eager to use ceph-volume for that, and >>> skip entirely over ceph-disk and our manual osd prepare process ... >> >> Yes. I think that for 12.2.1 this was the case as well, in 12.2.2 is >> the default. > > Just updated Ceph and received an update for 12.2.2 and afterwards tried > to prepare an osd with the following command: > > ceph-volume lvm prepare --bluestore --data osd.9/osd.9 > > in which osd.9 is both the name for the VG as for the LV. After running > the command I got the error on screen: > > --> ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack > > I checked the logs /var/log/ceph-volume.log which gave me the output > underneath. Am I hitting some kind of bug or am I doing something wrong > perhaps? Looks like there is a tag in there that broke it. Lets follow up on a tracker issue so that we don't hijack this thread? http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-volume/issues/new > > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,234][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] Running command: > ceph-authtool --gen-print-key > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,278][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout > AQB1giFayoNDEBAAtOCZgErrB02Hrs370zBDcA== > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,279][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] Running command: > ceph --cluster ceph --name client.bootstrap-osd --keyring > /var/lib/ceph/bootstrap-osd/ceph.keyring -i - osd new > 063c7de3-d4b2-463b-9f56-7a76b0b48197 > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,940][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout 25 > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,940][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] Running command: > sudo lvs --noheadings --separator=";" -o > lv_tags,lv_path,lv_name,vg_name,lv_uuid > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,977][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout > ";"/dev/LVM0/CEPH";"CEPH";"LVM0";"y4Al1c-SFHH-VARl-XQf3-Qsc8-H3MN-LLIIj4 > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,978][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout > ";"/dev/LVM0/ROOT";"ROOT";"LVM0";"31V3cd-E2b1-LcDz-2loq-egvh-lz4e-3u20ZN > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,978][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout > ";"/dev/LVM0/SWAP";"SWAP";"LVM0";"hI3cNL-sddl-yXFB-BOXT-5R6j-fDtZ-kNixYa > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,978][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout > d77bfa9f-4d8d-40df-852a-692a94929ed2";"/dev/osd.9/osd.9";"osd.9";"osd.9";"3NAmK8-U3Fx-KUOm-f8x8-aEtO-MbYh-uPGHhR > [2017-12-01 17:25:25,979][ceph_volume][ERROR ] exception caught by decorator > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/decorators.py", > line 59, in newfunc > return f(*a, **kw) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/main.py", line 144, > in main > terminal.dispatch(self.mapper, subcommand_args) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/terminal.py", line > 131, in dispatch > instance.main() > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/main.py", line > 38, in main > terminal.dispatch(self.mapper, self.argv) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/terminal.py", line > 131, in dispatch > instance.main() > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/prepare.py", > line 293, in main > self.prepare(args) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/decorators.py", > line 16, in is_root > return func(*a, **kw) > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/prepare.py", > line 206, in prepare > block_lv = self.get_lv(args.data) > File > "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/prepare.py", > line 102, in get_lv > return api.get_lv(lv_name=lv_name, vg_name=vg_name) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line > 162, in get_lv > lvs = Volumes() > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line > 411, in __init__ > self._populate() > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line > 416, in _populate > self.append(Volume(**lv_item)) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line > 638, in __init__ > self.tags = parse_tags(kw['lv_tags']) > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line > 66, in parse_tags > key, value = tag_assignment.split('=', 1) > ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack > > -- > Dennis Lijnsveld > BIT BV - http://www.bit.nl > Kvk: 09090351 > ___ > 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 removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
On 12/01/2017 01:45 PM, Alfredo Deza wrote: >> Will the upcoming 12.2.2 release ship with a ceph-volume capable of >> doing bluestore on top of LVM? Eager to use ceph-volume for that, and >> skip entirely over ceph-disk and our manual osd prepare process ... > > Yes. I think that for 12.2.1 this was the case as well, in 12.2.2 is > the default. Just updated Ceph and received an update for 12.2.2 and afterwards tried to prepare an osd with the following command: ceph-volume lvm prepare --bluestore --data osd.9/osd.9 in which osd.9 is both the name for the VG as for the LV. After running the command I got the error on screen: --> ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack I checked the logs /var/log/ceph-volume.log which gave me the output underneath. Am I hitting some kind of bug or am I doing something wrong perhaps? [2017-12-01 17:25:25,234][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] Running command: ceph-authtool --gen-print-key [2017-12-01 17:25:25,278][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout AQB1giFayoNDEBAAtOCZgErrB02Hrs370zBDcA== [2017-12-01 17:25:25,279][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] Running command: ceph --cluster ceph --name client.bootstrap-osd --keyring /var/lib/ceph/bootstrap-osd/ceph.keyring -i - osd new 063c7de3-d4b2-463b-9f56-7a76b0b48197 [2017-12-01 17:25:25,940][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout 25 [2017-12-01 17:25:25,940][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] Running command: sudo lvs --noheadings --separator=";" -o lv_tags,lv_path,lv_name,vg_name,lv_uuid [2017-12-01 17:25:25,977][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout ";"/dev/LVM0/CEPH";"CEPH";"LVM0";"y4Al1c-SFHH-VARl-XQf3-Qsc8-H3MN-LLIIj4 [2017-12-01 17:25:25,978][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout ";"/dev/LVM0/ROOT";"ROOT";"LVM0";"31V3cd-E2b1-LcDz-2loq-egvh-lz4e-3u20ZN [2017-12-01 17:25:25,978][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout ";"/dev/LVM0/SWAP";"SWAP";"LVM0";"hI3cNL-sddl-yXFB-BOXT-5R6j-fDtZ-kNixYa [2017-12-01 17:25:25,978][ceph_volume.process][INFO ] stdout d77bfa9f-4d8d-40df-852a-692a94929ed2";"/dev/osd.9/osd.9";"osd.9";"osd.9";"3NAmK8-U3Fx-KUOm-f8x8-aEtO-MbYh-uPGHhR [2017-12-01 17:25:25,979][ceph_volume][ERROR ] exception caught by decorator Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/decorators.py", line 59, in newfunc return f(*a, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/main.py", line 144, in main terminal.dispatch(self.mapper, subcommand_args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/terminal.py", line 131, in dispatch instance.main() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/main.py", line 38, in main terminal.dispatch(self.mapper, self.argv) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/terminal.py", line 131, in dispatch instance.main() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/prepare.py", line 293, in main self.prepare(args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/decorators.py", line 16, in is_root return func(*a, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/prepare.py", line 206, in prepare block_lv = self.get_lv(args.data) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/devices/lvm/prepare.py", line 102, in get_lv return api.get_lv(lv_name=lv_name, vg_name=vg_name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line 162, in get_lv lvs = Volumes() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line 411, in __init__ self._populate() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line 416, in _populate self.append(Volume(**lv_item)) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line 638, in __init__ self.tags = parse_tags(kw['lv_tags']) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/ceph_volume/api/lvm.py", line 66, in parse_tags key, value = tag_assignment.split('=', 1) ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack -- Dennis Lijnsveld BIT BV - http://www.bit.nl Kvk: 09090351 ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
On 12/01/2017 01:45 PM, Alfredo Deza wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Stefan Koomanwrote: >> Quoting Fabian Grünbichler (f.gruenbich...@proxmox.com): >>> I think the above roadmap is a good compromise for all involved parties, >>> and I hope we can use the remainder of Luminous to prepare for a >>> seam- and painless transition to ceph-volume in time for the Mimic >>> release, and then finally retire ceph-disk for good! >> >> Will the upcoming 12.2.2 release ship with a ceph-volume capable of >> doing bluestore on top of LVM? Eager to use ceph-volume for that, and >> skip entirely over ceph-disk and our manual osd prepare process ... > > Yes. I think that for 12.2.1 this was the case as well, in 12.2.2 is > the default. ...and will ceph-deploy be ceph-volume capable and default to it in the 12.2.2 release? Dietmar signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Stefan Koomanwrote: > Quoting Fabian Grünbichler (f.gruenbich...@proxmox.com): >> I think the above roadmap is a good compromise for all involved parties, >> and I hope we can use the remainder of Luminous to prepare for a >> seam- and painless transition to ceph-volume in time for the Mimic >> release, and then finally retire ceph-disk for good! > > Will the upcoming 12.2.2 release ship with a ceph-volume capable of > doing bluestore on top of LVM? Eager to use ceph-volume for that, and > skip entirely over ceph-disk and our manual osd prepare process ... Yes. I think that for 12.2.1 this was the case as well, in 12.2.2 is the default. > > Gr. Stefan > > -- > | BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 > | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / i...@bit.nl ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
Quoting Fabian Grünbichler (f.gruenbich...@proxmox.com): > I think the above roadmap is a good compromise for all involved parties, > and I hope we can use the remainder of Luminous to prepare for a > seam- and painless transition to ceph-volume in time for the Mimic > release, and then finally retire ceph-disk for good! Will the upcoming 12.2.2 release ship with a ceph-volume capable of doing bluestore on top of LVM? Eager to use ceph-volume for that, and skip entirely over ceph-disk and our manual osd prepare process ... Gr. Stefan -- | BIT BV http://www.bit.nl/Kamer van Koophandel 09090351 | GPG: 0xD14839C6 +31 318 648 688 / i...@bit.nl ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:25:03AM -0500, Alfredo Deza wrote: > Thanks all for your feedback on deprecating ceph-disk, we are very > excited to be able to move forwards on a much more robust tool and > process for deploying and handling activation of OSDs, removing the > dependency on UDEV which has been a tremendous source of constant > issues. > > Initially (see "killing ceph-disk" thread [0]) we planned for removal > of Mimic, but we didn't want to introduce the deprecation warnings up > until we had an out for those who had OSDs deployed in previous > releases with ceph-disk (we are now able to handle those as well). > That is the reason ceph-volume, although present since the first > Luminous release, hasn't been pushed forward much. > > Now that we feel like we can cover almost all cases, we would really > like to see a wider usage so that we can improve on issues/experience. > > Given that 12.2.2 is already in the process of getting released, we > can't undo the deprecation warnings for that version, but we will > remove them for 12.2.3, add them back again in Mimic, which will mean > ceph-disk will be kept around a bit longer, and finally fully removed > by N. > > To recap: > > * ceph-disk deprecation warnings will stay for 12.2.2 > * deprecation warnings will be removed in 12.2.3 (and from all later > Luminous releases) > * deprecation warnings will be added again in ceph-disk for all Mimic releases > * ceph-disk will no longer be available for the 'N' release, along > with the UDEV rules > > I believe these four points address most of the concerns voiced in > this thread, and should give enough time to port clusters over to > ceph-volume. > > [0] > http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2017-October/021358.html Thank you for listening to the feedback - I think most of us know the balance that needs to be struck between moving a project forward and decrufting a code base versus providing a stable enough interface for users is not always easy to find. I think the above roadmap is a good compromise for all involved parties, and I hope we can use the remainder of Luminous to prepare for a seam- and painless transition to ceph-volume in time for the Mimic release, and then finally retire ceph-disk for good! ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Re: [ceph-users] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
How quickly are you planning to cut 12.2.3? On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Alfredo Dezawrote: > Thanks all for your feedback on deprecating ceph-disk, we are very > excited to be able to move forwards on a much more robust tool and > process for deploying and handling activation of OSDs, removing the > dependency on UDEV which has been a tremendous source of constant > issues. > > Initially (see "killing ceph-disk" thread [0]) we planned for removal > of Mimic, but we didn't want to introduce the deprecation warnings up > until we had an out for those who had OSDs deployed in previous > releases with ceph-disk (we are now able to handle those as well). > That is the reason ceph-volume, although present since the first > Luminous release, hasn't been pushed forward much. > > Now that we feel like we can cover almost all cases, we would really > like to see a wider usage so that we can improve on issues/experience. > > Given that 12.2.2 is already in the process of getting released, we > can't undo the deprecation warnings for that version, but we will > remove them for 12.2.3, add them back again in Mimic, which will mean > ceph-disk will be kept around a bit longer, and finally fully removed > by N. > > To recap: > > * ceph-disk deprecation warnings will stay for 12.2.2 > * deprecation warnings will be removed in 12.2.3 (and from all later > Luminous releases) > * deprecation warnings will be added again in ceph-disk for all Mimic releases > * ceph-disk will no longer be available for the 'N' release, along > with the UDEV rules > > I believe these four points address most of the concerns voiced in > this thread, and should give enough time to port clusters over to > ceph-volume. > > [0] > http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2017-October/021358.html > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote: >> 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 > ___ > 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 removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
how quickly are you planning to cut 12.2.3? On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Alfredo Dezawrote: > Thanks all for your feedback on deprecating ceph-disk, we are very > excited to be able to move forwards on a much more robust tool and > process for deploying and handling activation of OSDs, removing the > dependency on UDEV which has been a tremendous source of constant > issues. > > Initially (see "killing ceph-disk" thread [0]) we planned for removal > of Mimic, but we didn't want to introduce the deprecation warnings up > until we had an out for those who had OSDs deployed in previous > releases with ceph-disk (we are now able to handle those as well). > That is the reason ceph-volume, although present since the first > Luminous release, hasn't been pushed forward much. > > Now that we feel like we can cover almost all cases, we would really > like to see a wider usage so that we can improve on issues/experience. > > Given that 12.2.2 is already in the process of getting released, we > can't undo the deprecation warnings for that version, but we will > remove them for 12.2.3, add them back again in Mimic, which will mean > ceph-disk will be kept around a bit longer, and finally fully removed > by N. > > To recap: > > * ceph-disk deprecation warnings will stay for 12.2.2 > * deprecation warnings will be removed in 12.2.3 (and from all later > Luminous releases) > * deprecation warnings will be added again in ceph-disk for all Mimic > releases > * ceph-disk will no longer be available for the 'N' release, along > with the UDEV rules > > I believe these four points address most of the concerns voiced in > this thread, and should give enough time to port clusters over to > ceph-volume. > > [0] http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/ > 2017-October/021358.html > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Daniel Baumann > wrote: > > 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 > ___ > 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] ceph-disk removal roadmap (was ceph-disk is now deprecated)
Thanks all for your feedback on deprecating ceph-disk, we are very excited to be able to move forwards on a much more robust tool and process for deploying and handling activation of OSDs, removing the dependency on UDEV which has been a tremendous source of constant issues. Initially (see "killing ceph-disk" thread [0]) we planned for removal of Mimic, but we didn't want to introduce the deprecation warnings up until we had an out for those who had OSDs deployed in previous releases with ceph-disk (we are now able to handle those as well). That is the reason ceph-volume, although present since the first Luminous release, hasn't been pushed forward much. Now that we feel like we can cover almost all cases, we would really like to see a wider usage so that we can improve on issues/experience. Given that 12.2.2 is already in the process of getting released, we can't undo the deprecation warnings for that version, but we will remove them for 12.2.3, add them back again in Mimic, which will mean ceph-disk will be kept around a bit longer, and finally fully removed by N. To recap: * ceph-disk deprecation warnings will stay for 12.2.2 * deprecation warnings will be removed in 12.2.3 (and from all later Luminous releases) * deprecation warnings will be added again in ceph-disk for all Mimic releases * ceph-disk will no longer be available for the 'N' release, along with the UDEV rules I believe these four points address most of the concerns voiced in this thread, and should give enough time to port clusters over to ceph-volume. [0] http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2017-October/021358.html On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Daniel Baumannwrote: > 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 ___ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com