this ceph-object-corpus repo is the basis of our ceph-dencoder test
src/test/encoding/readable.sh, which verifies that we can still decode
all of the data structures encoded by older ceph versions
i'd like to raise awareness that this ceph-object-corpus repo hasn't
been updated with new encodings since pacific 16.2.0, so we're missing
important regression test coverage since then
Nitzan prepared the encodings for reef 18.2.0 in
https://github.com/ceph/ceph-object-corpus/pull/17, but those haven't
merged yet. i had opened https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/54735 to
test that, but 'make check' identified failures like:
> The following tests FAILED:
> 147 - readable.sh (Failed)
>
> **** reencode of /home/jenkins-build/build/workspace/ceph-pull-requests/ceph-object-corpus/archive/18.2.0/objects/chunk_refs_t/ccb69d9ecd572c1f6ed9598899773cf1 resulted in a different dump ****
can we find a way to prioritize this? it would be great to have these
reef encodings while we're validating the squid release
Hi everyone,
On behalf of the Ceph Foundation Board, I would like to announce the
creation of, and cordially invite you to, the first of a recurring series
of meetings focused solely on gathering feedback from the users of
Ceph. The overarching goal of these meetings is to elicit feedback from the
users, companies, and organizations who use Ceph in their production
environments. You can find more details about the motivation behind this
effort in our user survey [1] that we highly encourage all of you to take.
This is an extension of the Ceph User Dev Meeting with concerted focus on
Performance (led by Vincent Hsu, IBM) and Orchestration/Deployment (led by
Matt Leonard, Bloomberg), to start off with. We would like to kick off this
series of meetings on March 21, 2024. The survey will be open until March
18, 2024.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
Thanks,
Neha
[1]
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15aWxoG4wSQz7ziBaReVNYVv94jA0dSNQsDJGqmHCLM…
Hello Ceph List,
I'd like to formally let the wider community know of some work I've been
involved with for a while now: adding Managed SMB Protocol Support to Ceph.
SMB being the well known network file protocol native to Windows systems and
supported by MacOS (and Linux). The other key word "managed" meaning
integrating with Ceph management tooling - in this particular case cephadm for
orchestration and eventually a new MGR module for managing SMB shares.
The effort is still in it's very early stages. We have a PR adding initial
support for Samba Containers to cephadm [1] and a prototype for an smb MGR
module [2]. We plan on using container images based on the samba-container
project [3] - a team I am already part of. What we're aiming for is a feature
set similar to the current NFS integration in Ceph, but with a focus on
bridging non-Linux/Unix clients to CephFS using a protocol built into those
systems.
A few major features we have planned include:
* Standalone servers (internally defined users/groups)
* Active Directory Domain Member Servers
* Clustered Samba support
* Exporting Samba stats via Prometheus metrics
* A `ceph` cli workflow loosely based on the nfs mgr module
I wanted to share this information in case there's wider community interest in
this effort. I'm happy to take your questions / thoughts / suggestions in this
email thread, via Ceph slack (or IRC), or feel free to attend a Ceph
Orchestration weekly meeting! I try regularly attend and we sometimes discuss
design aspects of the smb effort there. It's on the Ceph Community Calendar.
Thanks!
[1] - https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/55068
[2] - https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/56350
[3] - https://github.com/samba-in-kubernetes/samba-container/
Thanks for reading,
--John Mulligan
there was a consensus to drop support for ubuntu focal and centos
stream 8 with the squid release, and i'd love to remove those distros
from the shaman build matrix for squid and main branches asap
however, i see that quincy never supported ubuntu jammy, so our quincy
upgrade tests still have to run against focal. that means we'd still
have to build focal packages for squid
would it be possible to start building jammy packages for quincy to
allow those upgrade tests to run jammy instead?
this isn't an issue on the centos side because we've been building
centos 9 packages for quincy even though it's not listed in
https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/start/os-recommendations/#platforms
Hi Guillaume,
We need to move the Squid release to use a CentOS Stream 9 image
instead of 8. (CentOS Stream 8 is EOL in a few months.)
We also want to move Ceph's Dockerfile
(https://github.com/ceph/ceph-container/issues/2171)
What is the next step to accomplish these goals?
There are multiple jobs that have been in the queue over ten hours without
starting to build
Which Jenkins version are we using? Jenkins 2.222.3, 2.205 or anything in
between have this issue where jobs are waiting for multiple hours without
starting to build. Using Jenkins 2.204.6 or earlier tends to solve this
issue.
Source:
https://issues.jenkins.io/projects/JENKINS/issues/JENKINS-61779?filter=allo…
Hi Folks,
The performance meeting will be cancelled tomorrow as I have a
conflict. I'll be giving a webinar on hitting 1 TiB/s with Ceph the
hour before and it may go over with the Q&A session. Please feel free to
join us at the webinar if you are interested instead however!
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/meet-the-experts-mark-nelson-presents-ceph-a-j…
Thanks,
Mark
--
Best Regards,
Mark Nelson
Head of R&D (USA)
Clyso GmbH
p: +49 89 21552391 12
a: Loristraße 8 | 80335 München | Germany
w: https://clyso.com | e: mark.nelson(a)clyso.com
We are hiring: https://www.clyso.com/jobs/
On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:53:29 PM EDT David Yang wrote:
> This is great, we are currently using the smb protocol heavily to
> export kernel-mounted cephfs.
> But I encountered a problem. When there are many smb clients
> enumerating or listing the same directory, the smb server will
> experience high load, and the smb process will become D state.
> This problem has been going on for some time and no suitable solution
> has been found yet.
>
Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure concurrent dir access is part of the
test plan.
> John Mulligan <phlogistonjohn(a)asynchrono.us> 于2024年3月26日周二 03:43写道：
>
> >
> >
> > On Monday, March 25, 2024 3:22:26 PM EDT Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:01 PM John Mulligan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <phlogistonjohn(a)asynchrono.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, March 22, 2024 2:56:22 PM EDT Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi John,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > A few major features we have planned include:
> > > > > > * Standalone servers (internally defined users/groups)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No concerns here
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > * Active Directory Domain Member Servers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the second case, what is the plan regarding UID mapping? Is NFS
> > > > > coexistence planned, or a concurrent mount of the same directory
> > > > > using
> > > > > CephFS directly?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the immediate future the plan is to have a very simple, fairly
> > > > "opinionated" idmapping scheme based on the autorid backend.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, the docs for clustered SAMBA do mention the autorid backend in
> > > examples. It's a shame that the manual page does not explicitly list
> > > it as compatible with clustered setups.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, please consider that the majority of Linux distributions
> > > (tested: CentOS, Fedora, Alt Linux, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE) use "realmd" to
> > > join AD domains by default (where "default" means a pointy-clicky way
> > > in a workstation setup), which uses SSSD, and therefore, by this
> > > opinionated choice of the autorid backend, you create mappings that
> > > disagree with the supposed majority and the default. This will create
> > > problems in the future when you do consider NFS coexistence.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Well, it's a different topic that most organizations that I have seen
> > > seem to ignore this default. Maybe those that don't have any problems
> > > don't have any reason to talk to me? I think that more research is
> > > needed here on whether RedHat's and GNOME's push of SSSD is something
> > > not-ready or indeed the de-facto standard setup.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it's a bit of a mix, but am not sure either.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Even if you don't want to use SSSD, providing an option to provision a
> > > few domains with idmap rid backend with statically configured ranges
> > > (as an override to autorid) would be a good step forward, as this can
> > > be made compatible with the default RedHat setup.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's reasonable. Thanks for the suggestion.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sharing the same directories over both NFS and SMB at the same time,
> > > > also
> > > > known as "multi-protocol", is not planned for now, however we're all
> > > > aware
> > > > that there's often a demand for this feature and we're aware of the
> > > > complexity it brings. I expect we'll work on that at some point but
> > > > not
> > > > initially. Similarly, sharing the same directories over a SMB share
> > > > and
> > > > directly on a cephfs mount won't be blocked but we won't recommend
> > > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK. Feature request: in the case if there are several CephFS
> > > filesystems, support configuration of which one to serve.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Putting it on the list.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > In fact, I am quite skeptical, because, at least in my experience,
> > > > > every customer's SAMBA configuration as a domain member is a unique
> > > > > snowflake, and cephadm would need an ability to specify arbitrary
> > > > > UID
> > > > > mapping configuration to match what the customer uses elsewhere -
> > > > > and
> > > > > the match must be precise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree - our initial use case is something along the lines:
> > > > Users of a Ceph Cluster that have Windows systems, Mac systems, or
> > > > appliances that are joined to an existing AD
> > > > but are not currently interoperating with the Ceph cluster.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I expect to add some idpapping configuration and agility down the
> > > > line,
> > > > especially supporting some form of rfc2307 idmapping (where unix IDs
> > > > are
> > > > stored in AD).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, for whatever reason, people do this, even though it is cumbersome
> > > to manage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > But those who already have idmapping schemes and samba accessing ceph
> > > > will
> > > > probably need to just continue using the existing setups as we don't
> > > > have
> > > > an immediate plan for migrating those users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Here is what I have seen or was told about:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. We don't care about interoperability with NFS or CephFS, so we
> > > > > just
> > > > > let SAMBA invent whatever UIDs and GIDs it needs using the "tdb2"
> > > > > idmap backend. It's completely OK that workstations get different
> > > > > UIDs
> > > > > and GIDs, as only SIDs traverse the wire.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is pretty close to our initial plan but I'm not clear why you'd
> > > > think
> > > > that "workstations get different UIDs and GIDs". For all systems
> > > > acessing
> > > > the (same) ceph cluster the id mapping should be consistent.
> > > > You did make me consider multi-cluster use cases with something like
> > > > cephfs
> > > > volume mirroring - that's something that I hadn't thought of before
> > > > *but*
> > > > using an algorithmic mapping backend like autorid (and testing) I
> > > > think
> > > > we're mostly OK there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The tdb2 backend (used in my example) is not algorithmic, it is
> > > allocating. That is, it sequentially allocates IDs on the
> > > first-seen-first-allocated basis. Yet this is what this customer uses,
> > > presumably because it is the only backend that explicitly specifies
> > > clustering operation in its manual page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And the "autorid" backend is also not fully algorithmic, it allocates
> > > ranges to domains on the same sequential basis (see
> > > https://github.com/samba-team/samba/blob/6fb98f70c6274e172787c8d5f73aa93
> > > 9201
71e7c/source3/winbindd/idmap_autorid_tdb.c#L82), and therefore can
> > > create mismatching mappings if two workstations or servers have seen
> > > the users DOMA\usera and DOMB\userb in a different order. It is even
> > > mentioned in the manual page. SSSD largely avoids this problem by
> > > hashing the domain portion of the SID instead of
> > > allocating the subranges on a sequential basis.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Agreed. Thanks for the reminder. This will certainly need to go on the
> > test
plan.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 2. [not seen in the wild, the customer did not actually implement
> > > > > it,
> > > > > it's a product of internal miscommunication, and I am not sure if
> > > > > it
> > > > > is valid at all] We don't care about interoperability with CephFS,
> > > > > and, while we have NFS, security guys would not allow running NFS
> > > > > non-kerberized. Therefore, no UIDs or GIDs traverse the wire, only
> > > > > SIDs and names. Therefore, all we need is to allow both SAMBA and
> > > > > NFS
> > > > > to use shared UID mapping allocated on as-needed basis using the
> > > > > "tdb2" idmap module, and it doesn't matter that these UIDs and GIDs
> > > > > are inconsistent with what clients choose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I don't really understand this item. Fortunately, you
> > > > say
> > > > it
> > > > was only considered not implemented. :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3. We don't care about ACLs at all, and don't care about CephFS
> > > > > interoperability. We set ownership of all new files to root:root
> > > > > 0666
> > > > > using whatever options are available [well, I would rather use a
> > > > > dedicated nobody-style uid/gid here]. All we care about is that
> > > > > only
> > > > > authorized workstations or authorized users can connect to each NFS
> > > > > or
> > > > > SMB share, and we absolutely don't want them to be able to set
> > > > > custom
> > > > > ownership or ACLs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some times known as the "drop-box" use case I think (not to be
> > > > confused
> > > > with the cloud app of a similar name).
> > > > We could probably implement something like that as an option but I had
> > > > not
> > > > considered it before.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 4. We care about NFS and CephFS file ownership being consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > what Windows clients see. We store all UIDs and GIDs in Active
> > > > > Directory using the rfc2307 schema, and it's mandatory that all
> > > > > servers (especially SAMBA - thanks to the "ad" idmap backend)
> > > > > respect
> > > > > that and don't try to invent anything [well, they do -
> > > > > BUILTIN/Users
> > > > > gets its GID through tdb2]. Oh, and by the way, we have this
> > > > > strangely
> > > > > low-numbered group that everybody gets wrong unless they set "idmap
> > > > > config CORP : range = 500-999999".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is oh so similar to a project I worked on prior to working with
> > > > Ceph.
> > > > I think we'll need to do this one eventually but maybe not this year.
> > > > One nice side-effect of running in containers is that the low-id
> > > > number is
> > > > less of an issue because the ids only matter within the container
> > > > context
> > > > (and only then if using the kernel file system access methods). We
> > > > have
> > > > much more flexibility with IDs in a container.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So - are you going to use the kernel-based mount or the ceph vfs
> > > module? My tests indicate that, in situations where there are
> > > frequently accessed files, allowing the kernel to cache them in RAM
> > > (which the vfs module does not do) can create a big boost in
> > > performance. Also, SUSE considers the ceph vfs module a
> > > non-recommended solution apparently for the same performance-related
> > > reason, see
> > > https://documentation.suse.com/ses/7/html/ses-all/cha-ses-cifs.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The prototype module only uses the vfs module due to the extreme
> > simplicity of
setting it up in containers. Otherwise, we're trying to
> > keep our options open and are investigating multiple approaches
> > currently.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 5. We use a few static ranges for algorithmic ID translation using
> > > > > the
> > > > > idmap rid backend. Everything works.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 6. We use SSSD, which provides consistent IDs everywhere, and for a
> > > > > few devices which can't use it, we configured compatible idmap rid
> > > > > ranges for use with winbindd. The only problem is that we like
> > > > > user-private groups, and only SSSD has support for them (although
> > > > > we
> > > > > admit it's our fault that we enabled this non-default option).
> > > > > 7. We store ID mappings in non-AD LDAP and use winbindd with the
> > > > > "ldap" idmap backend.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For now, we're only planning to do idmapping with winbind and AD.
> > > > We'd
> > > > probably only consider non-AD ldap and/or ssd if there was strong and
> > > > loud
> > > > demand for it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, as I said, providing a way to use the "rid" backend with
> > > statically defined domains and ranges in addition to the default
> > > "autorid" backend would be, for me, a good-enough substitute for SSSD.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sounds reasonable. I've done it that way in a prior role too, so it's
> > somewhat
familiar. Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > I am sure other weird but valid setups exist - please extend the
> > > > > list
> > > > > if you can.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which of the above scenarios would be supportable without resorting
> > > > > to
> > > > > the old way of installing SAMBA manually alongside the cluster?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I hope I covered the above with some inline replies. This was great
> > > > food
> > > > for thought and at just the right level of technical detail. So thank
> > > > you
> > > > very much for replying, this is exactly the kind of discussion I want
> > > > to
> > > > have now where the design is still young and flexible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One other cool thing I plan on doing is supporting multiple samba
> > > > containers running on the same cluster (even the same node if I can
> > > > wrangle the network properly). So one could in fact have completely
> > > > different domain joins and/or configurations. While I wouldn't
> > > > suggest
> > > > anyone run a whole lot of different configurations on the same cluster
> > > > -
> > > > this idea already allows for some level of agility between schemes.
> > > > Later
> > > > on we might be able to use that as a building block for migration
> > > > tools,
> > > > either from an existing samba setup or between configurations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Multiple SAMBA containers are also good for high availability (with
> > > ctdb) or scale-out (with round-robin DNS).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, I plan on adding `global_custom_options` and
> > > > `share_custom_options`
> > > > for special overrides for development, qa, and experimentation but
> > > > those
> > > > are strongly within the "you break it, you bought it" realm. But
> > > > these
> > > > could be used for experimenting with idmapping schemes without
> > > > having
> > > > them all baked into the smb mgr module code.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Great, thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Once again, thanks for the feedback. This discussion is very welcome!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
> > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
