From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Erik McCormick Subject: Re: [ceph-users] removing cluster name support Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:19:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-qt0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169]:35301 "EHLO mail-qt0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751572AbdFIQTM (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:19:12 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w1so81165504qtg.2 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:19:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-users@ceph.com On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Sage Weil wrote: >> Questions: >> >> - Does anybody on the list use a non-default cluster name? >> - If so, do you have a reason not to switch back to 'ceph'? > > It sounds like the answer is "yes," but not for daemons. Several users use > it on the client side to connect to multiple clusters from the same host. > I thought some folks said they were running with non-default naming for daemons, but if not, then count me as one who does. This was mainly a relic of the past, where I thought I would be running multiple clusters on one host. Before long I decided it would be a bad idea, but by then the cluster was already in heavy use and I couldn't undo it. I will say that I am not opposed to renaming back to ceph, but it would be great to have a documented process for accomplishing this prior to deprecation. Even going so far as to remove --cluster from deployment tools will leave me unable to add OSDs if I want to upgrade when Luminous is released. > Nobody is colocating multiple daemons from different clusters on the same > host. Some have in the past but stopped. If they choose to in the > future, they can customize the systemd units themselves. > > The rbd-mirror daemon has a similar requirement to talk to multiple > clusters as a client. > > This makes me conclude our current path is fine: > > - leave existing --cluster infrastructure in place in the ceph code, but > - remove support for deploying daemons with custom cluster names from the > deployment tools. > > This neatly avoids the systemd limitations for all but the most > adventuresome admins and avoid the more common case of an admin falling > into the "oh, I can name my cluster? cool! [...] oh, i have to add > --cluster rover to every command? ick!" trap. > Yeah, that was me in 2012. Oops. -Erik > sage > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com