31 May
2023
31 May
'23
3:24 p.m.
I'm a new ceph user and I have some trouble with boostraping with
cephadm: using Pacific or Quincy no hard drive are detected by Ceph.
Using Octopus all the hard drives are detected. As I do not know how to
really clean, even a successful install but not functional, each test
requires me a full reinstall of the node (it is a test node, no problem
except needed time). A detailed (and working) cleaning (or uninstalling)
methode (or command) of a ceph deployment for a Ceph newbie will be very
helpfull.
About how to do this, I'm using proxmox for vitualization and removing a
VM via the web interface requires typing again the ID of the VM. May be
Ceph could require the user providing the cluster ID when running the
command ? In the command arguments if building a new cluster create
always a different id or when command is running as a double check.
Best regards,
Patrick
Le 30/05/2023 à 11:23, Frank Schilder a écrit :
What I'm having in mind is if the command is
already in history. A wrong history reference can execute a command with
"--yes-i-really-mean-it" even though you really don't mean it. Been there.
For an OSD this is maybe tolerable, but for an entire cluster ... not really. Some things
need to be hard to limit the blast radius of a typo (or attacker).
For example, when issuing such a command the first time, the cluster could print a nonce
that needs to be included in such a command to make it happen and which is only valid once
for this exact command, so one actually needs to type something new every time to destroy
stuff. An exception could be if a "safe-to-destroy" query for any daemon (pool
etc.) returns true.
I would still not allow an entire cluster to be wiped with a single command. In a single
step, only allow to destroy what could be recovered in some way (there has to be some form
of undo). And there should be notifications to all admins about what is going on to be
able to catch malicious execution of destructive commands.
Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14
________________________________________
From: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius(a)ungleich.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Frank Schilder
Cc: Nico Schottelius; Redouane Kachach; ceph-users(a)ceph.io
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: Seeking feedback on Improving cephadm bootstrap process
Hey Frank,
in regards to destroying a cluster, I'd suggest to reuse the old
--yes-i-really-mean-it parameter, as it is already in use by ceph osd
destroy [0]. Then it doesn't matter whether it's prod or not, if you
really mean it ... ;-)
Best regards,
Nico
[0] https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/add-or-rm-osds/
Frank Schilder <frans(a)dtu.dk> writes:
Hi, I would like to second Nico's comment.
What happened to the idea that a deployment tool should be idempotent? The most natural
option would be:
1) start install -> something fails
2) fix problem
3) repeat exact same deploy command -> deployment picks up at current state (including
cleaning up failed state markers) and tries to continue until next issue (go to 2)
I'm not sure (meaning: its a terrible idea) if its a good idea to
provide a single command to wipe a cluster. Just for the fat finger
syndrome. This seems safe only if it would be possible to mark a
cluster as production somehow (must be sticky, that is, cannot be
unset), which prevents a cluster destroy command (or any too dangerous
command) from executing. I understand the test case in the tracker,
but having such test-case utils that can run on a production cluster
and destroy everything seems a bit dangerous.
I think destroying a cluster should be a manual and tedious process
and figuring out how to do it should be part of the learning
experience. So my answer to "how do I start over" would be "go figure
it out, its an important lesson".
Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14
________________________________________
From: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius(a)ungleich.ch>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 10:40 PM
To: Redouane Kachach
Cc: ceph-users(a)ceph.io
Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Seeking feedback on Improving cephadm bootstrap process
Hello Redouane,
much appreciated kick-off for improving cephadm. I was wondering why
cephadm does not use a similar approach to rook in the sense of "repeat
until it is fixed?"
For the background, rook uses a controller that checks the state of the
cluster, the state of monitors, whether there are disks to be added,
etc. It periodically restarts the checks and when needed shifts
monitors, creates OSDs, etc.
My question is, why not have a daemon or checker subcommand of cephadm
that a) checks what the current cluster status is (i.e. cephadm
verify-cluster) and b) fixes the situation (i.e. cephadm verify-and-fix-cluster)?
I think that option would be much more beneficial than the other two
suggested ones.
Best regards,
Nico
--
Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io