On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Florian Haas wrote: > On 08/22/2012 03:10 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >> I pushed a branch that changes some of the crush terminology. Instead of >> having a crush type called "pool" that requires you to say things like >> "pool=default" in the "ceph osd crush set ..." command, it uses "root" >> instead. That hopefully reinforces that it is a tree/hierarchy. >> >> There is also a patch that changes "bucket" to "node" throughout, since >> bucket is a term also used by radosgw. >> >> Thoughts? I think the main pain in making this transition is that old >> clusters have maps that have a type 'pool' and new ones won't, and the >> docs will need to walk people through both... > > "pool" in a crushmap being completely unrelated to a RADOS pool is > something that I've heard customers/users report as confusing, as well. > So changing that is probably a good thing. Naming it "root" is probably > a good choice as well, as it happens to match > http://ceph.com/wiki/Custom_data_placement_with_CRUSH. > > As for changing "bucket" to node... a "node" is normally simply a > physical server (at least in HA terminology, which many potential Ceph > users will be familiar with), and CRUSH uses "host" for that. So that's > another recipe for confusion. How about using something super-generic, > like "element" or "item"? > > Cheers, > Florian My guess is that he is trying to use data structure tree nomenclature (root, node, leaf). I agree that node is an overloaded term (as is pool). As for an alternative to bucket which indicates the item is a collection, what about subtree or branch? Scott-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
