There are a lot of benefits to containerization that is hard to do without it. Finer grained ability to allocate resources to services. (This process gets 2g of ram and 1 cpu) Security is better where only minimal software is available within the container so on service compromise its harder to escape. Ability to run exactly what was tested / released by upstream. Fewer issues with version mismatches. Especially useful across different distros. Easier to implement orchestration on top which enables some of the advanced features such as easy to allocate iscsi/nfs volumes. Ceph is finally doing so now that it is focusing on containers. And much more. ________________________________________ From: Teoman Onay <tonay@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:38 AM To: Matthew H Cc: Matthew Vernon; ceph-users Subject: Re: ceph-ansible in Pacific and beyond? Check twice before you click! This email originated from outside PNNL. A containerized environment just makes troubleshooting more difficult, getting access and retrieving details on Ceph processes isn't as straightforward as with a non containerized infrastructure. I am still not convinced that containerizing everything brings any benefits except the collocation of services. On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:27 PM Matthew H <matthew.heler@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There should not be any performance difference between an un-containerized > version and a containerized one. > > The shift to containers makes sense, as this is the general direction that > the industry as a whole is taking. I would suggest giving cephadm a try, > it's relatively straight forward and significantly faster for deployments > then ceph-ansible is. > > ________________________________ > From: Matthew Vernon <mv3@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:50 PM > To: ceph-users <ceph-users@xxxxxxx> > Subject: ceph-ansible in Pacific and beyond? > > Hi, > > I caught up with Sage's talk on what to expect in Pacific ( > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPVtn53MbxTc&data=04%7C01%7CKevin.Fox%40pnnl.gov%7Cc8375da0c5e949514eae08d8e96beb60%7Cd6faa5f90ae240338c0130048a38deeb%7C0%7C0%7C637515997042609565%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7uTZ2om6cgMF7wVMY6ujPHdGS%2FltOUbv0C8L%2FKF3BSU%3D&reserved=0 ) and there was no mention > of ceph-ansible at all. > > Is it going to continue to be supported? We use it (and uncontainerised > packages) for all our clusters, so I'd be a bit alarmed if it was going > to go away... > > Regards, > > Matthew > > > -- > The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research > Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a > company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered > office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |