From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sage Weil Subject: Re: librados option 'conf' and 'cluster'. Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:09:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <569CB969.8080601@xtaotech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from cobra.newdream.net ([66.33.216.30]:39191 "EHLO cobra.newdream.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754328AbcASPJH (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:09:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <569CB969.8080601@xtaotech.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Javen Wu Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, jdurgin@redhat.com On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Javen Wu wrote: > Hi buddies, > > Recently, I met a problem about librados option 'conf' and 'cluster'. > I created a CEPH cluster but not name it 'ceph', it triggers a lot of problems > on my openstack environment. > I found there are consumers of librados or librados python binding only > respect > 'conf' option. However, the option 'cluster' is ignored usually. > > So far, I suffered the problem in: > 1. librados python binding > 2. qemu rbd driver > 3. cinder volume rbd driver > > I saw there is rados_create2() API in librados besides rados_create(), but > it seems the API is not widedly used by consumers yet. > > I am thinking whether we can do a compromise in librados. If consumers of > librados does not give an arguments for 'cluster'(cluster name) explicitly, > Can we use (basename(conffile).split('.conf')[0]) as cluster name by > default in librados? > > So that all consumers of the librados can tolerate the non-'ceph' cluster name > without any change. > > How do you guys think? If you agree to the change, I can do the quick fixing. This would be a bit of a hack, but it seems reasonable enough to me--I can't think of anything that would break as a result. Josh, what do you think? The logic it could even be restricted to the client side only... sage