Sorry for addressing this again. But I think there are quite a few still with Nautilus, that are planning such upgrade. Nautilus is currently available for el7, el8 Octopus is currently available for el7, el8 Pacific is currently available for el8, el9 Quincy is currently available for el8, el9 el7 eol 2024 I would like to end up at el9 with a the Pacific release that does not have these performance issues[1] However with the currently offered ceph releases I am more or less forced to an upgrade path of: upgrade hosts from el7 -> el8, upgrade from nautilus -> pacific, upgrade el8 -> el9 - disadvantage upgrading hosts with some co-located services to el8 and then again to el9 - disadvantage having to wait with el9 upgrade until pacific performance issue is fixed. the alternative I have been looking at is building Nautilus for el9 (centos9 stream) which seems to go ok (site-test-packages is not building though). This would result in a more efficient upgrade of: upgrade hosts from el7 -> el9, upgrade from nautilus -> pacific - advantage is only 1 os upgrade. - advantage is I can stay on Nautilus until the pacifc performance issue is fixed. Up until now I can't remember having to much issues with building things from source. However with this storage I would like to have more reassurance. 1. can anyone share experiences with building for different os? 2. what is with all these build warnings, is this common? 3. is it possible that @ceph they can build these rpms and have this go through their default (automated) testing/deploy procedures? I assume with such nice testing facilities this should not take that much time, not? 4. Can anyone recommend some testing procedures? I have a 3 node test cluster. I was thinking of upgrading one host to el9 and run these el9 Nautilus rpms on it, see how it holds. ps. I am not really interested yet in adding complexity with podman. pps. Would be nice if someone from ceph could advice on this. [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@ceph.io/msg19012.html