Hello, On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:49:15 +0200 Dietmar Rieder wrote: > On 10/24/2016 03:10 AM, Christian Balzer wrote: > > [...] > > There are several items here and I very much would welcome a response from > > a Ceph/RH representative. > > > > 1. Is that depreciation only in regards to RHCS, as Nick seems to hope? > > Because I very much doubt that, why develop code you just "removed" from > > your milk cow? > > > > 2. Is that the same kind of depreciation as with the format 1 RBD images, > > as in, will there be a 5 year window where this functionality is NOT > > removed from the code base and a clear, seamless and non-disruptive > > upgrade path? > > > > Let me add one more point: > > How will this affect situations in which one has cephfs on EC pools > (which demand a cache tier in front)? > > Read the very recent "Does anyone know why cephfs do not support EC pool?" thread. Clearly _that_ part requiring cache-tiers is going to be addressed/removed with the L or K release. Christian -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi@xxxxxxx Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications http://www.gol.com/ _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |