24 Oct
2019
24 Oct
'19
3:43 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Sage Weil <sweil(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Sebastian Wagner wrote:
Patrick: this will be confusing the rook case too, right? Imagine two
CephFileSystem CRs, each saying 3 mds daemons, but in reality the pool of
6 MDSs will be assigned randomly-ish to either fs?
That's correct. MDSs are not distinguished in any way by the mons. We
should just use random alphabetical names for each daemon.
There may come a day when we want to assign new MDS daemons to a
particular FS. The most justifiable reason for it would be that a
production FS needs MDSs with more memory. I think we should do it
differently than with per-MDS configurations we had before. We would
also want to consider stretch clusters; the previous configurations
didn't describe that scenario easily.
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
- The
'name' here, IIUC, is the name of the grouping of daemons. I think
it was intended to be a file system, as per the docs:
The ``name`` parameter is an identifier of the group of instances:
* a CephFS file system for a group of MDS daemons,
* a zone name for a group of RGWs
but IIRC the new CephFS behavior is that all standby daemons go into the
same pool and are doled out to file systems that need them arbitrarily.
We use this to set the name of the Rook CR, and this is afaik still
supposed to be the fs name.