Yes it is indeed difficult to find a good balance between asking multiple things in one email and risk that not all are answered, or putting them as individual questions. -----Original Message----- From: David Turner [mailto:drakonstein@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: donderdag 31 mei 2018 23:50 To: Marc Roos Cc: ceph-users Subject: Re: Why the change from ceph-disk to ceph-volume and lvm? (and just not stick with direct disk access) You are also making this entire conversation INCREDIBLY difficult to follow by creating so many new email threads instead of sticking with one. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:48 PM David Turner <drakonstein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Your question assumes that ceph-disk was a good piece of software. It had a bug list a mile long and nobody working on it. A common example was how simple it was to mess up any part of the dozens of components that allowed an OSD to autostart on boot. One of the biggest problems was when ceph-disk was doing it's thing and an OSD would take longer than 3 minutes to start and ceph-disk would give up on it. That is a little bit about why a new solution was sought after and why ceph-disk is being removed entirely. LVM was a choice made to implement something other than partitions and udev magic while still incorporating the information still needed from all of that in a better solution. There has been a lot of talk about this on the ML. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:23 PM Marc Roos <M.Roos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: What is the reasoning behind switching to lvm? Does it make sense to go through (yet) another layer to access the disk? Why creating this dependency and added complexity? It is fine as it is, or not? _______________________________________________ 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
 |