On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:01 AM Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann(a)bfh.ch> wrote:
* Ceph users
will benefit from both approaches being supported into the future
this is rather important for us as well.
we use systemd-nspawn based containers (that act and are managed like
traditional VMs, just without the overhead).
cephadm enforces not just containers, but particular ones (granted,
docker/podman are the currently most used container-runtimes).
I'm not familiar with systemd-nspawn, but maybe it could be supported.
I suspect the primary challenge would be making it consume the OCI
container image, or producing some alternative build artifact that
takes its place.
cephadm controls everything via systemd units, so in that regard the
experience should be consistent either way.
sage