Howdy, After the IBM acquisition of RedHat the landscape for CentOS quickly changed. As I understand it right now Ceph 14 is the last version that will run on CentOS/EL7 but CentOS8 was "killed off". So given that, if you were going to build a Ceph cluster today would you even bother doing it using a non-commercial distribution or would you just use RHEL 8 (or even their commercial Ceph product). Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well? Thanks, -Drew
I would use croit From: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com> Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 7:45 AM To: 'ceph-users@ceph.io' <ceph-users@ceph.io> Subject: [ceph-users] Questions RE: Ceph/CentOS/IBM Howdy, After the IBM acquisition of RedHat the landscape for CentOS quickly changed. As I understand it right now Ceph 14 is the last version that will run on CentOS/EL7 but CentOS8 was "killed off". So given that, if you were going to build a Ceph cluster today would you even bother doing it using a non-commercial distribution or would you just use RHEL 8 (or even their commercial Ceph product). Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well? Thanks, -Drew _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Hi, You can get support for running Ceph on a number of distributions - RH support both RHEL and Ubuntu, Canonical support Ubuntu, the smaller consultancies seem happy to support anything plausible (e.g. Debian), this mailing list will opine regardless of what distro you're running ;-) Regards, Matthew -- The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.
Hello Mattew, I agree with you. We have been running Ceph clusters on debian, centos, enterprise suse linux, redhat, opensuse, gardenlinux and whatever is LSB compliant for the last 9 years. I think the trend towards containers further decouples it from Linux distributions. Regards, Joachim ___________________________________ Clyso GmbH - Ceph Foundation Member support@clyso.com https://www.clyso.com Am 03.03.2021 um 17:19 schrieb Matthew Vernon:
Hi,
You can get support for running Ceph on a number of distributions - RH support both RHEL and Ubuntu, Canonical support Ubuntu, the smaller consultancies seem happy to support anything plausible (e.g. Debian), this mailing list will opine regardless of what distro you're running ;-)
Regards,
Matthew
Hi Matthew, Starting of Ceph 4, RH does only support RHEL 7.x & 8.1. Ubuntu support has been deprecated Regards On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:19 PM Matthew Vernon <mv3@sanger.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi,
You can get support for running Ceph on a number of distributions - RH support both RHEL and Ubuntu, Canonical support Ubuntu, the smaller consultancies seem happy to support anything plausible (e.g. Debian), this mailing list will opine regardless of what distro you're running ;-)
Regards,
Matthew
-- The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:45 AM Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com> wrote:
Howdy,
After the IBM acquisition of RedHat the landscape for CentOS quickly changed.
As I understand it right now Ceph 14 is the last version that will run on CentOS/EL7 but CentOS8 was "killed off".
So given that, if you were going to build a Ceph cluster today would you even bother doing it using a non-commercial distribution or would you just use RHEL 8 (or even their commercial Ceph product).
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
Thanks, -Drew
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this. How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
+1 On 3.3.2021 г. 11:37 ч., Marc wrote:
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this.
How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Just go for CentOS stream it will be at least as stable as CentOS and probably even more. CentOS Stream is just the next minor version of the current RHEL minor which means it already contains fixes not yet released for RHEL but available for CentOS stream. It is not as if CentOS stream would be a beta. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:39 PM Radoslav Milanov <radoslav.milanov@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this.
How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know
On 3.3.2021 г. 11:37 ч., Marc wrote: the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
_______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:20 AM Teoman Onay <tonay@redhat.com> wrote:
Just go for CentOS stream it will be at least as stable as CentOS and probably even more.
CentOS Stream is just the next minor version of the current RHEL minor which means it already contains fixes not yet released for RHEL but available for CentOS stream. It is not as if CentOS stream would be a beta.
This is fundamentally not true. Centos stream uses the "rolling release" model, which means that it is not versioned (there will be no CentOS stream 8,9,10,etc). This is an absolute nightmare to manage if you are trying to run a large scale homogenous fleet of systems, and makes it completely unsuitable for this task. Given that this is the ceph-users mailing list, my guess is that most people here run large numbers of homogenous machines that run a Ceph cluster. Centos Stream is a horrible choice of platform to do this. When people talk about a distribution's stability, they are usually not talking about "does it crash a lot"; they are talking about the frequency of change. CentOS Stream is essentially the definition of "unstable". To answer OP's question, a bunch of choices are outlined here <https://itsfoss.com/rhel-based-server-distributions/>. I have no personal experience with any of these, but I would probably check out Rocky Linux <https://rockylinux.org/> first since it was created by one of the original CentOS developers
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:39 PM Radoslav Milanov < radoslav.milanov@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this.
How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know
On 3.3.2021 г. 11:37 ч., Marc wrote: the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- This e-mail and all information in, attached to, or linked via this e-mail (together the ‘e-mail’) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the intended addressee(s). Access to, or any onward transmission, of this e-mail by any other person is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested to immediately alert the sender of this e-mail and to immediately delete this e-mail. Any disclosure in any form of all or part of this e-mail, or of any the parties to it, including any copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. This e-mail is not, and is not intended to be, and should not be construed as being, (a) any offer, solicitation, or promotion of any kind; (b) the basis of any investment or other decision(s); (c) any recommendation to buy, sell or transact in any manner any good(s), product(s) or service(s), nor engage in any investment(s) or other transaction(s) or activities; or (d) the provision of, or related to, any advisory service(s) or activities, including regarding any investment, tax, legal, financial, accounting, consulting or any other related service(s).
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 03:21:04PM -0800, Matt Wilder wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:20 AM Teoman Onay <tonay@redhat.com> wrote:
Just go for CentOS stream it will be at least as stable as CentOS and probably even more.
CentOS Stream is just the next minor version of the current RHEL minor which means it already contains fixes not yet released for RHEL but available for CentOS stream. It is not as if CentOS stream would be a beta.
This is fundamentally not true. Centos stream uses the "rolling release" model, which means that it is not versioned (there will be no CentOS stream 8,9,10,etc).
Please read this instead of spreading such non sense: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-have-already-been-centos-strea...
This is fundamentally not true. Centos stream uses the "rolling release" model, which means that it is not versioned (there will be no CentOS stream 8,9,10,etc).
Please read this instead of spreading such non sense:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-have-already-been-centos- stream-back-2019-smith/?trackingId=dPaTlPfqLABwcKbgGYV%2FuA%3D%3D
The reason why I am using centos7 is that I know that there is a el7 and they are identical. So if I have some sort of issue, I have the option to decide to get a license and paid support. If centos stream != el8 this means this option is gone, it is that simple to me. And as Matthew wrote "Starting of Ceph 4, RH does only support RHEL 7.x & 8.1.", and since Mark is only using "CentOS 8 stream for our upstream performance testing clusters", and not production there does not seem to be a valid argument for using stream. I do not really get even why you would like to have different os in your testing and production environment. If you look at this 'bug of the year' case, you would never discover this in your testing environment, and would be hit with it on your production. And if such minor lz patch can take your whole cluster down, I cannot imagine what can all happen if you are getting more frequent uncontrolled(?), not verified(?) updates.
I hope that you are using a tool like foreman or spacewalk to deploy your dev & production environments as they allow you to "freeze" your repo content. Then you deploy all your servers with the content of these repositories (you may even use lifecycles to ease dev -> test -> prod) therefore they are all the same regardless when you deploy them. This works for CentOS stream as well. Without using such tools, even with the "old" CentOS, a server deployed at the beginning of the month would be different from one deployed a few weeks later as s-stream fixes were "regularly" shipped. On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:31 AM Marc <Marc@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
This is fundamentally not true. Centos stream uses the "rolling release" model, which means that it is not versioned (there will be no CentOS stream 8,9,10,etc).
Please read this instead of spreading such non sense:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-should-have-already-been-centos- stream-back-2019-smith/?trackingId=dPaTlPfqLABwcKbgGYV%2FuA%3D%3D
The reason why I am using centos7 is that I know that there is a el7 and they are identical. So if I have some sort of issue, I have the option to decide to get a license and paid support.
If centos stream != el8 this means this option is gone, it is that simple to me.
And as Matthew wrote "Starting of Ceph 4, RH does only support RHEL 7.x & 8.1.", and since Mark is only using "CentOS 8 stream for our upstream performance testing clusters", and not production there does not seem to be a valid argument for using stream. I do not really get even why you would like to have different os in your testing and production environment. If you look at this 'bug of the year' case, you would never discover this in your testing environment, and would be hit with it on your production. And if such minor lz patch can take your whole cluster down, I cannot imagine what can all happen if you are getting more frequent uncontrolled(?), not verified(?) updates.
I’m at something of a loss to understand all the panic here. Unless I’ve misinterpreted, CentOS isn’t killed, it’s being updated more frequently. Want something stable? Freeze a repository into a local copy, and deploy off of that. Like we all should be doing anyway, vs. relying on slurping packages over the net all the time from upstream repositories we don’t control. This has been best practice for years: * No unexpected regressions * Lessened exposure to trojans * Lower latency, better availability Half of us run our own kernels — and other updated packages — on CentOS anyway, so how different is Stretch *really*?
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this.
How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
I don’t think IBM “owns” Ceph in a way that would let them do that. The scenarios: * Status quo: people with certain corporate postures keep paying for RHCS, others use and contribute to the community release * IBM cuts it loose. OSS forges on. * The Solaris / ZFS phenomenon: fork fork fork. Not all that different from the first scenario. ymmv
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:46 AM Marc <Marc@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this.
How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
I think unlike centos decision(which was sad for many employees as well), ceph's decision is owned by foundation - https://ceph.io/foundation/ , so I dont think one company has full say on its future.
On 3/3/21 10:37 AM, Marc wrote:
Secondly, are we expecting IBM to "kill off" Ceph as well?
Stop spreading rumors! really! one can take it further and say kill product x, y, z until none exist!
This natural / logical thinking, the only one to blame here is IBM/redhat. If you have no regards for maintaining the release period as it was scheduled, and just cut it short by 7-8 years. More professional would have been to announce this for el9, and not change 8 like this.
How can you trust anything else they are now saying???? How can you know the opensource version of ceph is going to be having restricted features. With such management they will not even inform you. You will be the last to know, like all clients. I think it is a valid concern.
Speaking only for myself (but as someone who has been working on Ceph for nearly a decade all the way back to DreamHost), I do not believe IBM/Red Hat want to change the "upstream first" development model we follow for Ceph. There's always been a little tension regarding how much time engineers spend on upstream development vs supporting the downstream products (and that existed even before Red Hat), but honestly I'm not really worried about it. Ultimately releases flow from upstream to downstream except in rare circumstances (ie immediate hotfixes needed) and that model has worked well imho. FWIW a lot of the people working on Ceph are passionate about open source. It's baked into our culture and integral to how we run the project. A large part of the Crimson development for instance is being done by outside contributors from Intel, Samsung, Qihoo 360, and others. If significant changes were forced on Ceph there would be a lot of upset people including me. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but part of our job is to continually showcase and advocate for why open source is a better model not only for the world at large, but for our customers and IBM as well. I believe companies (mostly!) do what's in their self interest, and I fully believe that it's in IBM's self interest right now to keep investing in Ceph (and fwiw they have been via additional upstream hardware purchases, testing, code contributions, product integration, etc). Anyway, I don't know if that makes you feel any better, but imho Red Hat and IBM have been good custodians of Ceph so far, and at least for the immediate future I expect that to continue. Also fwiw, I still use CentOS 8 stream for our upstream performance testing clusters and have no plans to change any time soon. Mark
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Speaking only for myself (but as someone who has been working on Ceph for nearly a decade all the way back to DreamHost), I do not believe IBM/Red Hat want to change the "upstream first" development model we follow for Ceph. There's always been a little tension regarding how much time engineers spend on upstream development vs supporting the downstream products (and that existed even before Red Hat), but honestly I'm not really worried about it. Ultimately releases flow from upstream to downstream except in rare circumstances (ie immediate hotfixes needed) and that model has worked well imho.
FWIW a lot of the people working on Ceph are passionate about open source. It's baked into our culture and integral to how we run the project. A large part of the Crimson development for instance is being done by outside contributors from Intel, Samsung, Qihoo 360, and others. If significant changes were forced on Ceph there would be a lot of upset people including me. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but part of our job is to continually showcase and advocate for why open source is a better model not only for the world at large, but for our customers and IBM as well. I believe companies (mostly!) do what's in their self interest, and I fully believe that it's in IBM's self interest right now to keep investing in Ceph (and fwiw they have been via additional upstream hardware purchases, testing, code contributions, product integration, etc).
Anyway, I don't know if that makes you feel any better, but imho Red Hat and IBM have been good custodians of Ceph so far, and at least for the immediate future I expect that to continue. Also fwiw, I still use CentOS 8 stream for our upstream performance testing clusters and have no plans to change any time soon.
I do have to say I too have more faith in a company like IBM compared to Google or Microsoft. I have always admired their involvement in projects like the power cpu's, ledger technology and open compute. This opinion of mine is not really formed on solid arguments though, since I am (unfortunately) not really active in these area's. However the current situation does reveal an issue of open source that support can be dropped instantly. I do not have a large cluster, but if you have 3000 hard drives, you are not easily going to switch to a different solution. I would like to share a thought with you, that is already on the back of my mind for quite some time. I am not really an expert in GPL and other open source licenses, but maybe you can put this to your legal department and see what they think of it. What if you would make a (new?) open source license that would address this issue of instantly dropping support and/or features. The license would ensure support for predefined period, would ensure that some features are not dropped and moved to some proprietary version. Some sort of commitment of support for critical patches, etc. Maybe it could be even beneficial for acquiring market share.
ср, 3 мар. 2021 г. в 20:45, Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com>:
Howdy,
After the IBM acquisition of RedHat the landscape for CentOS quickly changed.
As I understand it right now Ceph 14 is the last version that will run on CentOS/EL7 but CentOS8 was "killed off".
This is wrong. Ceph 15 runs on CentOS 7 just fine, but without the dashboard. -- Alexander E. Patrakov CV: http://u.pc.cd/wT8otalK
I have been told that Rocky Linux is a fork of CentOS that will be what CentOS used to be before this all happened. I'm not sure how that figures in here, but it's worth knowing. -Dave -- Dave Hall Binghamton University kdhall@binghamton.edu On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:41 PM Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com> wrote:
As I understand it right now Ceph 14 is the last version that will run on CentOS/EL7 but CentOS8 was "killed off".
This is wrong. Ceph 15 runs on CentOS 7 just fine, but without the dashboard.
Oh, what I should have said is that I want it to be fully functional.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
On 3/3/21 10:45 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Howdy,
After the IBM acquisition of RedHat the landscape for CentOS quickly changed.
As I understand it right now Ceph 14 is the last version that will run on CentOS/EL7 but CentOS8 was "killed off".
So given that, if you were going to build a Ceph cluster today would you even bother doing it using a non-commercial distribution or would you just use RHEL 8 (or even their commercial Ceph product).
We run our Ceph 14.2 Nautilus cluster on Ubuntu 18.4 Bionic Beaver: https://download.ceph.com/debian-nautilus/dists/bionic/ Planing to run Ceph 15.2 Octopus on Ubuntu 20.4 Focal Fossa: https://download.ceph.com/debian-octopus/dists/focal/ Regards, Milan -- Milan Kupcevic Senior Cyberinfrastructure Engineer at Project NESE Harvard University FAS Research Computing
participants (15)
-
Alexander E. Patrakov
-
Anthony D'Atri
-
Clyso GmbH - Ceph Foundation Member
-
Dave Hall
-
Drew Weaver
-
Freddy Andersen
-
Marc
-
Mark Nelson
-
Matt Wilder
-
Matthew Vernon
-
Milan Kupcevic
-
Radoslav Milanov
-
Teoman Onay
-
Teoman ONAY
-
Vasu Kulkarni