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(a)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 > >

+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(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:20 AM Teoman Onay &lt;tonay(a)redhat.com&gt; 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). 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 -- 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).

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*? 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 3/3/21 10:37 AM, Marc wrote: 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

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(a)binghamton.edu On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:41 PM Drew Weaver &lt;drew.weaver(a)thenap.com&gt; wrote: