two tarballs for ceph 10.0.1

In http://download.ceph.com/tarballs/ , there's two tarballs: "ceph_10.0.1.orig.tar.gz" and "ceph_10.0.1.orig.tar.gz.1" Which one is correct? Can we delete one? - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org

Re: Time to move the make check bot to jenkins.ceph.com

This is really great. Thanks Loic and Alfredo! - Ken On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi, > > The make check bot moved to jenkins.ceph.com today and ran it's first > successfull job. You will no longer see comments from the bot: it will update > the

Firefly EOL date - still Jan 2016?

Hi folks, This is mainly directed at the stable release team members (http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph-releases/wiki/HOWTO), since they are the ones doing the work of backporting :) On http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/releases/, it says the estimated EOL for Firefly is Jan 2016, which is

non-fast-forward merges prevented for some branches in GitHub

GitHub.com now has an option in its UI for users to "protect" certain branches. I've enabled the "Disable force-pushes to this branch and prevent it from being deleted" setting for the following repos and branches: ceph.git and ceph-qa-suite.git: - "master" - "jewel" - "infernalis" - "hammer" -

Re: civetweb upstream/downstream divergence

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Nathan Cutler wrote: >> IMHO the first step should be to get rid of the evil submodule. Arguably >> the most direct path leading to this goal is to simply package up the >> downstream civetweb (i.e. 1.6 plus

Re: civetweb upstream/downstream divergence

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Ken Dreyer <kdre...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Nathan Cutler wrote: >>> IMHO the first step should be to get rid of the evil submodule. Arguably &g

Re: streamlining release notes

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > What do you think? Great idea. This should also help when sharing information between the Hammer and Firefly release notes, since we can copy and paste in each PR. - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [ceph-users] Potential OSD deadlock?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > Oh.. I bet you didn't upgrade the osds to 0.94.4 (or latest hammer build) > first. They won't be allowed to boot until that happens... all upgrades > must stop at 0.94.4 first. This sounds pretty crucial. is there Redmine

Re: [ceph-users] Important security noticed regarding release signing key

ot;ceph.com/packages/ceph-extras" is in used now, such as > qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.415.el6.3ceph, qemu-kvm-tools-0.12.1.2-2.415.el6.3ceph > etc. > Any new releases will be provided ? > > > On 15/9/22 下午10:24, Ken Dreyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:38 A

Re: [ceph-users] Important security noticed regarding release signing key

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Songbo Wang wrote: > Hi, all, > Since the last week‘s attack, “ceph.com/packages/ceph-extras” can be > opened never, but where can I get the releases of ceph-extra now? > > Thanks and Regards, > WangSongbo > The packages in

Re: Improving shared backport efforts

Hi Loic, Exactly, I didn't have the time do the actual PR myself :( - Ken On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Ken, > > The tip you left at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12591 regarding the > backport of "rgw: create a tool for orphaned objects cleanup"

Re: Package issue in hammer branch on ubuntu

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Varada Kari varada.k...@sandisk.com wrote: Seems in debian/control , ceph version is mentioned as 0.94.2-2 than 0.94.2-1. Change log files contains the build till 0.94.2-1. Made the following change, my installation went through. It sounds like you're patching

jerasure packaging and Ceph

Hi Loic, I was looking through Ceph's bundled libraries recently and I was wondering why Ceph bundles its own copy of jerasure. Could you give some background on that? Why don't we link to an separate system package? - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe ceph-devel

Re: jerasure packaging and Ceph

On 08/07/2015 01:27 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: Hi Ken, On 07/08/2015 19:25, Ken Dreyer wrote: Hi Loic, I was looking through Ceph's bundled libraries recently and I was wondering why Ceph bundles its own copy of jerasure. Could you give some background on that? Why don't we link

Re: c++11 merged in master

On 08/07/2015 11:52 AM, Sage Weil wrote: We'll need to do something similar on centos6 to get g++ 4.7 or 4.8 in place, and the jenkins slaves for release builds will also need to be updated. I think the most official repository for this sort of thing for CentOS 6 is SCL [1] (it's a little

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

On 07/30/2015 01:01 PM, Ali Maredia wrote: - Creating CMake targets that build packages (such as for rpm or debian) There was some discussion on the list a while back about how we don't really need to go through the full autoconf + ./configure + make rpm routine simply to generate packages with

Re: reconciliation between firefly and v0.80.8.2

On 07/24/2015 11:06 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: * build: remove LIBPERFGLUE from LIBMDS is unique to v0.80.8.2 and it is unclear why it was found to be usefu in isolation. An issue for firefly backport of http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10691 was open at

Re: Breaks Replaces in debian/control in backports

On 07/19/2015 05:28 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: I think it achieves the same thing and is less error prone in the case of backports. The risk is that upgrading from v0.94.2-34 to the version with this change will fail because the conditions are satisified (it thinks all versions after v0.94.2

Re: [IANA #826907] Application for a Port Number and/or Service Name ceph (Completed) (fwd)

On 07/10/2015 03:08 PM, Sage Weil wrote: It's official! We have a new port number for the monitor: 3300(that's CE4h, or 0xCE4). Sometime in the next cycle we'll need to make a transition plan to move from 6789. That's great news! Thanks for doing that. I've updated the

Re: debian packaging for wip-10587-split-servers

On 07/10/2015 08:21 AM, kefu chai wrote: can we - have another package named ceph-base which packages whatever ceph currently has now. - make the ceph a meta package which only offers the dependencies to ceph-mon, ceph-osd, ceph-mds? and let ceph-{mon,osd,mds} Depends on ceph-base instead?

Re: debian packaging for wip-10587-split-servers

On 07/10/2015 04:54 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: I've done some testing with a dummy package and this works. apt-get upgrade kept the update back, since there were new packages introduced, but apt-get dist-upgrade worked. Is that expected? (... newbie Debian user here :D ) I've pushed

debian packaging for wip-10587-split-servers

I need some Debian packaging help :) For http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10587 I'm working to split out the ceph-mon and ceph-osd servers from the main ceph package. The goal is to allow someone to apt-get install only a monitor or an OSD without having to install the binaries for both. (ceph-mds

Re: systemd support

On 07/03/2015 04:21 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: [cc'ing ceph-devel in case someone else has the answer] Hi Ken, I know very little about systemd and I'd like to learn more. My understanding is that we have some support in the current master branch, but it is incomplete. Are there differences

Re: [ceph-users] CEPH on RHEL 7.1

- Original Message - From: Varada Kari varada.k...@sandisk.com To: ceph-devel ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Cc: ceph-users ceph-us...@ceph.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:33:08 AM Subject: [ceph-users] CEPH on RHEL 7.1 Hi, We are trying to build CEPH on RHEL7.1. But facing

Re: Build RPMs from git

Here's how I do it. 1. Git clone 2. ./do_autogen.sh 3. ./configure --without-radosgw --without-fuse --without-tcmalloc --without-libatomic-ops --without-libxfs 4. # The configure step above creates a ceph.spec with the proper version number, which you can then copy: cp ceph.spec

Re: Build RPMs from git

On 06/10/2015 09:44 AM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: This is really helpful, I was able to figure out what was needed in a tarball manually, but this is what I was really looking for to create the tarball. Is there anyway to skip this step like in the deb build for really fast builds? I guess if I

Re: what this would look like if the system is with templates.

On 06/09/2015 11:19 AM, Owen Synge wrote: we can be remove many hard coded values replaced with variable and that probably will only grow in number for example %if 0%{?rhel} || 0%{?fedora} --with-systemd-libexec-dir=/usr/libexec/ceph \ %endif %if 0%{?opensuse}

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. I was picturing that we'd just

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

On 06/03/2015 03:38 PM, Gregory Farnum wrote: We could maybe autodetect if they don't specify one? Sorry, yes, that's what I meant; my last email was unclear. - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe ceph-devel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More

Re: packaging init systems in a more autoools style way.

On 06/03/2015 02:45 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Sounds good to me. It could (should?) even error out if no init system is specified? Otherwise someone will likely be in for a surprise. I was picturing that we'd just autodetect based on OS version (eg Ubuntu 15.04 should default to

Re: python-ceph centos7 epel issues

version numbers to the Obsoletes that ceph-devel-compat and python-ceph-compat packages in EPEL are doing. I'll try testing this combination with some scratch builds. - Ken - Original Message - From: Dan van der Ster d...@vanderster.com To: Ken Dreyer kdre...@redhat.com Cc: ceph-devel

Re: selinux scanning all OSD objects

Hi Dan, Thanks for the pointer. I've added Milan Broz as a watcher to that ticket, since Milan's working on SELinux integration with Ceph. - Ken - Original Message - From: Dan van der Ster d...@vanderster.com To: Ken Dreyer kdre...@redhat.com Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Sent

Re: firewall questions

On 05/21/2015 09:37 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Thu, 21 May 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: I think that would mean we'd want to open 6800-7300 by default? And for this firewalld service name, I was thinking of naming this 6800-7300 rule ceph, since it encompasses both the OSD and MDS services. Does

Re: firewall questions

On 05/20/2015 04:53 PM, Sage Weil wrote: 2. I talked recently with Sam about the possible ports an OSD could use, and our conversation made me think that our firewall docs for OSDs and MDSs might need to be updated: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11688 Currently the docs say calculate the

firewall questions

It would be really convenient to have human-readable firewalld service definitions for Ceph, so that users could do things like: firewall-cmd --add-service=ceph-mon or firewall-cmd --add-service=ceph ... instead of having to know specific port numbers to open. In order to submit service

excluding /var/lib/ceph in updatedb.conf

Hi Dan, I watched your OpenStack Summit conference where you talked about excluding /var/lib/ceph from /etc/updatedb.conf. Did you open any bugs for that? That change seems like something we should get into the distros. - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe

Re: excluding /var/lib/ceph in updatedb.conf

Woah, and Ken Dreyer even commented on that Redmine ticket there, long ago :) I will take that ticket and run this down with Fedora now. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1223582 - Ken On 05/20/2015 04:43 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: Hi Ken, Not sure, here's what I could find: The original

Re: running daemons as user/group ceph

On 04/24/2015 03:13 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 04/24/2015 11:37 AM, Sage Weil wrote: -- Logs -- One other thing in addition to the log directory is the socket directory permissions (/var/run/ceph). The ceph UID will need to write there, right? In newer

Re: running daemons as user/group ceph

On 04/24/2015 11:37 AM, Sage Weil wrote: -- Logs -- One other thing in addition to the log directory is the socket directory permissions (/var/run/ceph). The ceph UID will need to write there, right? In newer distros with systemd, /var/run is on tmpfs so we use this tmpfiles.d snippet to be

systemd unit files and multiple daemons

I could really use some eyes on the systemd change proposed here: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11344 Specifically, on bullet #4 there, should we have a single ceph-mon.service (implying that users should only run one monitor daemon per server) or if we should support multiple ceph-mon@ services

Re: [Ceph-maintainers] statically allocated uid/gid for ceph

On 04/14/2015 09:21 AM, Sage Weil wrote: I think we still want them to be static across a distro; it's the cross-distro change that will be relatively rare. So a fixed ID from each distro family ought to be okay? Sounds sane to me. I've filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524 to

proposal to stop using backport: in commit logs

A while ago this came up in #ceph-devel and I wanted to bring it to a wider audience. Should we stop the convention of adding the backport: tags in Git? Loic brought up the point that this data is essentially immutable after we merge it, and it's better to point at a Redmine tracker where we

Re: Where is the systemd files?

The systemd service unit files were imported into the tree, but they have not been added into any upstream packaging yet. See the discussion at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=769593 or git log -- systemd. I don't think there are any upstream tickets in Redmine for this yet.

Re: CentOS 7 yum-builddep fails on %if

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/25/2015 11:55 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: Hi Ken, yum-builddep fails on CentOS 7 on the latest ceph.spec.in with the following error: error: parse error in expression error: /tmp/install-deps.52/ceph.spec:50: bad %if condition Bad spec:

regenerating man pages

I had a question about the way that we're handling man pages. In 356a749f63181d401d16371446bb8dc4f196c2a6 , rbd: regenerate rbd(8) man page, it looks like man/rbd.8 was regenerated from doc/man/8/rbd.rst It seems like it would be more efficient to avoid storing man pages in Git and generate them

Re: xio messenger is not building by default

On 03/16/2015 10:20 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: Hi, Arent OFED dependencies already packaged? I assumed that only Accelio would be a submodule. Thanks for pointing that out. It's in Fedora as libibverbs-devel, and it's in Debian as libibverbs-dev. So you're right, Accelio is the only one

Re: xio messenger is not building by default

On 03/13/2015 05:44 PM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Somnath Roy wrote: Hi Sage, Why we are not building xio messenger by default like other experimental features ? Let me know if you want to, I can put a patch in. This is a build/packaging issue. I think right now libxio needs

Re: advice on adding the rhel6-server-optional repo

On 03/07/2015 01:03 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: which I eventually found in [rhel6-server-optional] as installed with http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11061#note-2 How do you suggest I script this in https://ceph.com/git/?p=ceph.git;a=blob;f=install-deps.sh so people don't worry about it ?

Re: git submodule deinit

On 03/05/2015 02:14 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: Hi Danny, Unfortunately it looks like submodule deinit requires a version of git that's not in precise. http://gitbuilder.sepia.ceph.com/gitbuilder-ceph-deb-precise-amd64-basic/log.cgi?log=9a0ac62a9cf27573d5345143a3bc6c6b737031db + git

Re: v0.80.8 and librbd performance

On 03/03/2015 04:19 PM, Sage Weil wrote: Hi, This is just a heads up that we've identified a performance regression in v0.80.8 from previous firefly releases. A v0.80.9 is working it's way through QA and should be out in a few days. If you haven't upgraded yet you may want to wait.

Re: using radosgw with mod_proxy_fcgi

On 02/11/2015 05:21 PM, Deneau, Tom wrote: I am running on a platform (aarch64) for which there are no pre-built binaries of the ceph patched apache and the ceph patched mod_fastcgi. Hi Tom, The ceph-patched Apache had numerous outstanding CVEs, and I discourage users from running it any

Re: RGW's apache and mod_fastcgi

On 01/06/2015 12:14 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: There's the question of Unix Domain Sockets support. In Yehuda's testing with mod_proxy_fcgi, Unix Domain Sockets (UDS) provide a lot better performance in comparison to TCP sockets. Apache's UDS support shipped in Apache upstream version 2.4.9

Re: Some gitbuilders not working

On 01/09/2015 08:16 AM, Sage Weil wrote: On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Ken Dreyer wrote: On 01/09/2015 03:33 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: On 09/01/2015 07:55, David Zafman wrote: We are seeing gitbuilder failures. This is what I saw on one. error: Failed build dependencies: xmlstarlet is needed by ceph

Re: Some gitbuilders not working

On 01/09/2015 03:33 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: On 09/01/2015 07:55, David Zafman wrote: We are seeing gitbuilder failures. This is what I saw on one. error: Failed build dependencies: xmlstarlet is needed by ceph-1:0.90-821.g680fe3c.el7.x86_64 This is because

new testing lab (was: Re: Testing the next giant release)

On 01/07/2015 04:40 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: Great, thanks, I did not know about this one :-) On 08/01/2015 00:29, Yuri Weinstein wrote: Look for them in new Octo lab - http://pulpito.ceph.redhat.com/ Not everyone in the community is going to know about the Octo lab, and that URL is

RGW's apache and mod_fastcgi

As background for people who are not familiar with this situation: for a long time Ceph has used some forked copies of Apache and mod_fastcgi to power the RADOS Gateway. From discussions with Dan Mick and Yehuda, Ceph's changes to Apache were mainly cosmetic, and it's ok to use the

Ceph's custom apache: ok to drop?

Hi folks, The Apache fork that we ship on Ceph.com (https://github.com/ceph/apache2) is several versions behind upstream and has a couple CVEs by now. I've heard from the developers (I don't remember if it was Dan, Yehuda, or someone else) refer on IRC to the idea that the changes in our Ceph

force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch. (Not that any of us were going to do that, of course! :) - Ken -- To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: force pushes disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git

On 12/10/2014 03:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: On 10/12/2014 23:20, Ken Dreyer wrote: Thanks to GitHub Support, force-pushes are now disabled for master in ceph.git and ceph-deploy.git. This should save us from accidentally deleting history with a bad force-push to the wrong branch

Re: Fixes for missing and replicated files in ceph.spec.in

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:27 AM, huang jun hjwsm1...@gmail.com wrote: Signed-off-by: hjwsm1989hjwsm1...@gmail.com -- diff --git a/ceph.spec.in b/ceph.spec.in index 3caa849..facba6c 100644 --- a/ceph.spec.in +++ b/ceph.spec.in @@ -429,6 +429,7 @@ fi @@ -429,6 +429,7 @@ fi

Re: Fixes for missing and replicated files in ceph.spec.in

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Sage Weil s...@inktank.com wrote: On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Ken Dreyer wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:27 AM, huang jun hjwsm1...@gmail.com wrote: @@ -690,6 +689,7 @@ fi %{_bindir}/ceph_test_rados_list_parallel %{_bindir}/ceph_test_rados_open_pools_parallel

Re: packaging: do not package libdir/ceph recursively

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Alexandre Oliva ol...@gnu.org wrote: My earlier patch was partially redundant with commit e60dcfa80dec, that didn't make 0.76, so here's the non-redundant change, as a separate patch. Thank you! I've added my signed-off-by and submitted it for inclusion in