Hi Loic, Thanks for explaining the differences between Hammer's disk activations and Jewel's. I think I understand the problem better now. On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Loic Dachary <ldachary@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The conservative approach to the problem would be to cherry-pick what > we can ( > https://github.com/dachary/ceph/commit/9dce05a8cdfc564c5162885bbb67a04ad7b95c5a > for instance ) and document known side effects of ceph-disk > instability so people know it's an annoyance but nothing destructive > or blocking. In the worst case scenario, deactivating the udev rules > and running ceph-disk prepare + ceph-disk activate manually or by > writing a script that does things sequentially is a viable workaround. This approach (documentation) sounds reasonable to me, and it makes sense that the larger re-architecture of running "ceph-disk activate" outside udev is only something that can happen in a major release boundary (in this case Infernalis / Jewel). Once we're happy that the docs for manually recovering are solid, we can possibly address it with a script as you suggest. If we can document the worst case scenario and what to do when ceph-disk-in-udev fails, that would really improve the user experience. What's the procedure for deactivating the Hammer udev rules, for example? - Ken -- 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
