It would be more appreciated to provide users with evaluation results of migration and recovery tools by QA to avoid any disaster on production environment, and get agreement with them e.g., #1 Scenarios we test #2 Images spec we use and some Does it make sense, or too much? Regards, On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jason Dillaman <jdillama@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Shinobu Kinjo <skinjo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> +2 >> * Reduce manual operation as much as possible. >> * A recovery tool in case that we break something which would not >> appear to us initially. > > I definitely agree that this is an overdue tool and we have an > upstream feature ticket for tracking a possible solution for this [1]. > We won't remove the support for interacting with v1 images before we > provide a path for migration. The Ceph core development team would > really like to drop internal support for tmap operations, which are > only utilized by RBD v1. > > [1] http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18430 > > -- > Jason -- 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
