I've opened a ticket to track this, should get fixed soon: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/6979 Thanks for helping to narrow it down! On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/12/13 03:34, Alfredo Deza wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Mark Kirkwood >> <mark.kirkwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/12/13 12:14, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder if it might be worth adding a check at the start of either >>>> ceph-deploy to look for binaries we are gonna need. >>>> >>> ...growl: either ceph-deploy *or ceph-disk* was what I was thinking! >> >> >> Still, this doesn't look quite right. Are you able to reproduce this >> from scratch? It would be interesting to see the ceph-deploy >> logs while trying to replicate. We assume that `gdisk` (that provides >> `sgdisk`) is installed but if that is not the case we need >> to add a check for it and install it. >> >> Hopefully the logs, and maybe some terminal output to see if the >> package is actually installed would be also useful > > > Yes, you are correct! I think this will only happen in the case when ceph > has been installed by hand (in my case build and make install), then > ceph-disk can fail as indicated due to gdisk (hence sgdisk) not being > installed. > > The test cases where I used ceph-deploy to install ceph, I note that gdisk > in being included too. > > > I guess it would still be good to provide a better message when there is no > sgdisk etc (in case the gdisk package gets removed or similar). > > Regards > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |