6 Dec
2019
6 Dec
'19
10:44 a.m.
Hi Sebastien and thanks for your feedback.
On 06.12.19 10:00, Sebastien Han wrote:
ceph-volume is a sunk cost!
And your argument basically falls into that paradigm, "oh we have
invested so much already, that we cannot stop and we should continue
even though this will only bring more trouble". Incapable of accepting
this sunk cost.
All the issues that have been fixed with a lot of pain.
All that pain could have been avoided if LVM wasn't there and pursuing
in that direction will only lead us to more pain again.
The reason I disagree here is the scenario were the WAL/DB is on a
separate device and a single OSD crashes. In that case you would like to
recreate just that single OSD instead of the whole group. Also if we
deprecate a tool such like we did with ceph-disk, users have to migrate
sooner or later if they don't want to do everything manually on the CLI
(by that I mean via fdisk/pure lvm commands and so on).
We could argue now that this can still be done on the command line
manually but all our efforts are towards simplicity/automation and
having everything in the Dashboard. If the underlying tool/functionality
isn't there anymore, that isn't possible.
Also, I'm not saying we should replace the tool
but allow not using
LVM for a simple scenario to start with
Which then leads me to, why couldn't such functionality be implemented
into a single tool instead of having two at the end?
So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm against everything I'm
just saying that I think this is a topic that should be discussed in
more depth.
As said, just my two cents here.
Kai
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D 90409 Nürnberg
GF:Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer, (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)