On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 06:46:31AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > > > 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 > > I like this since it fits into the current flags nicely. The downside is > we don't grandfather existing pools on upgrade. Not sure if people think > that's a good idea. > > > > 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. > > We should mirror this option: > > OPTION(osd_pool_default_flag_hashpspool, OPT_BOOL, true) // use new pg > hashing to prevent pool/pg overlap > > So, > > osd_pool_default_flag_nodelete = true > osd_pool_default_flag_nopgchange = true > osd_pool_default_flag_nosizechange = true > > The big question for me is should we enable these by default in hammer? Please see https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3409 I have not enabled any by default. Also, I have not mirrored CEPH_FEATURE_OSDHASHPSPOOL, should I? -- Mykola Golub -- 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
