Dear all, coming back to this — which NFS packages are people using nowadays? The Storage SIG is essentially gone for those who are using RockyLinux / AlmaLinux 8, i.e. this is now 404: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8/storage/x86_64/nfsganesha-3/repodata/repom... (as expected, since CentOS 8 is EoL, and stream is gone, too). I see that the official cephadm containers built here: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-container/blob/main/ceph-releases/ALL/centos/da... are either using "ye olde builds" from: https://download.ceph.com/nfs-ganesha/ for deprecated releases, or the "buildlogs" packages e.g. from: https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/8/storage/x86_64/ which should be used mainly for testing purposes, according to the linked webpage. I guess those are builds for CentOS Stream. Is the latter the way to follow when using package-based installation on a rebuild distro? Cheers and thanks, Oliver Am 12.01.22 um 17:02 schrieb Oliver Freyermuth:

Dear Dan,

Am 12.01.22 um 16:23 schrieb Dan van der Ster:

...

Dear Ceph Users,

There was a question at the CLT today about the nfs-ganesha builds at: https://download.ceph.com/nfs-ganesha/

Are people actively using those? Is there a reason you don't use the builds from https://download.nfs-ganesha.org/ (which links to the Storage SIG in the case of CentOS and has builds for SUSE, Debian, and Ubuntu).

we are currently using these — but the interesting question is indeed why we do, and whether we should still do that ;-).

When choosing which repo to pick (two years ago), we found the packages on download.ceph.com were built against the different Ceph releases:  https://download.ceph.com/nfs-ganesha/rpm-V2.7-stable/ while the packages on download.nfs-ganesha.org (for the releases at that time, e.g. V2.7) did not have Ceph-version specific builds yet. Form this, I assumed that it would be more safe to use the releases from download.ceph.com which were built against a selected Ceph major release matching the Ceph release we are running, to avoid potential ABI incompatibilities.

Since the storage SIG also builds nfs-ganesha against different Ceph releases, this argument should be gone — but one thing remains unclear to me: Is somebody already using the "mix" of Ceph packages from download.ceph.com combined with storage SIG packages of nfs-ganesha?

Alternatively, it might be best for Ceph users on RHEL-based systems to switch all packages to rely on the storage SIG (it is something we have to plan for anyways since we'd like to stay on a RedHat Rebuild OS instead of switching to Stream,  and the storage SIG keeps building on RHEL8 for now[0], so this seems to be the safe way to go for users of RedHat Rebuild systems).

So to summarize, my questions would be:

- Is mixing packages from download.ceph.com and the storage SIG (for nfs-ganesha) a healthy thing to do?

- For RedHat Rebuild users, would the recommendation be to use the storage SIG for "everything" instead of doing the mix?   This would mean to avoid all packages on download.ceph.com, though.

- In any case, what would be the timeline between stopping "building" and stopping "distributing"?   To ease migration (if needed), it would of course be nice to have a longer time in which the old packages are still distributed,   even if the building of new versions is stopped.

Cheers (and a happy new year!),     Oliver

[0] https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/561

...

Asking another way -- if we stop building nfs-ganesha and distributing them on download.ceph.com -- what would break?

Thanks!

Dan _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io

_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io