It is possible I misunderstood Sage’s message - I apologize if that’s the case. This is what made me uncertain: >>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for >>> future bugfix point releases. Decision for new releases (Infernalis, Jewel, K*) regarding distro support should be made officialy somewhere. Not sure if packages for them exist today and where? I don’t think new releases need to be made for CentOS 6 etc., parts of it are just too old for new stuff to make sense. But once that “commitment” is made (like http://ceph.com/docs/master/releases/ ) I expect them to be “supported" for until the Ceph release itself is EOL. Of course whoever is “freeloading” must be ready for anything, anytime, no promises :-) Jan > On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:47, Mark Nelson <mnelson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jan, > > From my reading of Sage's email, hammer would continue to be supported on older distros, but new development would not target those releases. Was that your impression as well? > > As a former system administrator I feel your pain. Upgrading to new distros is a ton of work and incurs a ton of uncertainty and potential problems and liability. I truly think though that we will have a lot more luck testing and bug fixing new Ceph releases if we can focus specifically on new distro support and not get distracted with trying to maintain compatability for new Ceph releases on previous generation LTS distro releases. > > IE it's one thing if we've already tested say Hammer on those distros and minor bug fixes aren't likely to hit weird lurking kernel or distro bugs that aren't likely to get fixed. With new releases though, there's a ton of things we change, and some of them may be tied to expecting certain behavior in the kernel (Random example: XFS not blowing up with sparse writes when non-default extent sizes are used). At some point we need to stop make exceptions for stuff like this because an old kernel may not have a patch or behavior that we need to move Ceph forward. > > Mark > > On 07/30/2015 09:29 AM, Jan “Zviratko” Schermer wrote: >> I understand your reasons, but dropping support for LTS release like this >> is not right. >> >> You should /lege artis/ support every distribution the LTS release could >> have >> ever been installed on - that’s what the LTS label is for and what we >> rely on >> once we build a project on top of it >> >> CentOS 6 in particular is still very widely used and even installed, >> enterprise >> apps rely on it to this day. Someone out there is surely maintaining >> their LTS >> Ceph release on this distro and not having tested packages will hurt badly. >> We don’t want out project managers selecting EMC SAN over CEPH SDS >> because of such uncertainty, and you should benchmark yourself to those >> vendors, maybe... >> >> Every developer loves dropping support and concentrating on the bleeding >> edge interesting stuff but that’s not how it should work. >> >> Just my 2 cents... >> >> Jan >> >>> On 30 Jul 2015, at 15:54, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx >>> <mailto:sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>> >>> As time marches on it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain proper >>> builds and packages for older distros. For example, as we make the >>> systemd transition, maintaining the kludgey sysvinit and udev support for >>> centos6/rhel6 is a pain in the butt and eats up time and energy to >>> maintain and test that we could be spending doing more useful work. >>> >>> "Dropping" them would mean: >>> >>> - Ongoing development on master (and future versions like infernalis and >>> jewel) would not be tested on these distros. >>> >>> - We would stop building upstream release packages on ceph.com >>> <http://ceph.com> for new >>> releases. >>> >>> - We would probably continue building hammer and firefly packages for >>> future bugfix point releases. >>> >>> - The downstream distros would probably continue to package them, but the >>> burden would be on them. For example, if Ubuntu wanted to ship Jewel on >>> precise 12.04, they could, but they'd probably need to futz with the >>> packaging and/or build environment to make it work. >>> >>> So... given that, I'd like to gauge user interest in these old distros. >>> Specifically, >>> >>> CentOS6 / RHEL6 >>> Ubuntu precise 12.04 >>> Debian wheezy >>> >>> Would anyone miss them? >>> >>> In particular, dropping these three would mean we could drop sysvinit >>> entirely and focus on systemd (and continue maintaining the existing >>> upstart files for just a bit longer). That would be a relief. (The >>> sysvinit files wouldn't go away in the source tree, but we wouldn't worry >>> about packaging and testing them properly.) >>> >>> Thanks! >>> sage >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |