Re: 'Immutable bit' on pools to prevent deletion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/16/2015 10:50 AM, Sebastien Han wrote:
> Hum if I understand correctly you’re all more in favour of a conf setting in the ceph.conf;
> The problem for me is that this will apply to all the pools by default and I’ll have to inject an arg to change this.
> Injecting the arg will remove this “lock" and then all of the sudden all the pools become deletable through the lib again (who knows what users can do simultaneously)
> 

No, from what I understand it's easier to implement, not the better way.

> I’m more in favour of a new flag to set to the pool, something like:
> 
> ceph osd pool set foo protect true
> ceph osd pool delete foo foo —yes….
> ERROR: pool foo is protected against deletion
> 
> ceph osd pool delete foo protect false
> ceph osd pool delete foo foo —yes….
> Pool successfully deleted
>

Something like that per pool seems better to me as well. But I'd then
opt for a 'feature' which can be set on a pool.

ceph osd pool set foo nodelete
ceph osd pool set foo nopgchange
ceph osd pool set foo nosizechange


> The good thing with that is that owners of the pool (or admin), will be able to set this flag or remove it.
> We stick with the "ceph osd pool delete foo foo —yes….” command as well, so we don’t change too much things.
> 
> Moreover we can also make use of a config option to protect all new created pools by default:
> 
> mon protect pool default = true
> 
> This automatically set the protected flag to a new pool.
> 
> What do you think?
> 

Setting a nodelete flag or something like that by default is fine with
me. Like Sage mentioned earlier, almost nobody will have ephemeral pools
in their cluster. You don't want to loose data because you accidentally
removed a pool.

Wido

>> On 15 Jan 2015, at 18:24, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Then secondary question is whether the cluster should implicitly clear the 
>> allow-delete after some time period (maybe 'pending-delete' would make 
>> more sense in that case), or whether we deny IO during that period.  Seems 
>> perhaps too complicated.
> 
> 
> Cheers.
> –––– 
> Sébastien Han 
> Cloud Architect 
> 
> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood."
> 
> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 
> Mail: sebastien.han@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Address : 11 bis, rue Roquépine - 75008 Paris
> Web : www.enovance.com - Twitter : @enovance 
> 


-- 
Wido den Hollander
42on B.V.
Ceph trainer and consultant

Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
Skype: contact42on
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux