>From a high level view, what is the logical difference between the crush ruleset and the properties object? I'm thinking about how this is exposed to users and tools, and it seems like both would be defined as "the settings about data placement and encoding". I certainly understand the separation internally, I am just concerned about making the interface we expose upwards more complicated by adding a new type of object. Is there really a need for a new type of properties object, instead of storing these properties under the existing ruleset ID? John On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Loic Dachary <loic.dachary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sage & Sam, > > I quickly sketched the replacement of the pg_pool_t::properties map with a OSDMap::properties list of maps at https://github.com/dachary/ceph/commit/fe3819a62eb139fc3f0fa4282b4d22aecd8cd398 and explained how I see it at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/7662#note-2 > > It indeed makes things simpler, more consistent and easier to explain. I can provide an implementation this week if this seems reasonable to you. > > Cheers > > -- > Loďc Dachary, Senior Developer > > -- > 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 -- 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
