Re: Why you might want packages not containers for Ceph deployments

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'm arriving late to this thread, but a few things stood out that I
wanted to clarify.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:28 PM Oliver Freyermuth
<freyermuth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To conclude, I strongly believe there's no one size fits all here.
>
> That was why I was hopeful when I first heard about the Ceph orchestrator idea, when it looked to be planned out to be modular,
> with the different tasks being implementable in several backends, so one could imagine them being implemented with containers, with classic SSH on bare-metal (i.e. ceph-deploy-like), ansible, rook or maybe others.
> Sadly, it seems it ended up being "container-only".
> Containers certainly have many uses, and we run thousands of them daily, but neither do they fit each and every existing requirement,
> nor are they a magic bullet to solve all issues.

The orchestrator layer is an abstraction of the tool(s) used to
provision ceph.  Cephadm is just one implementation of that
abstraction (there is another implementation that talks to rook).  The
abstraction is not designed to be 'container-only,' although currently
both implementations do use containers.

To add orchestrator support for a traditional deployment using
packages, we have two options: (1) implement a third orchestrator
module that handles package installation etc, or (2) modify cephadm to
handle both container-based and package-based deployments.

I suspect that (2) is less work, but I'll be honest that the cephadm
team isn't yet swayed by the anti-container arguments, so there would
be some lobbying and discussion to be done first!

For either option, there are also some minor orchestrator interface
adjustments that maybe needed.  Cephadm can deploy an arbitrary ceph
version/container image for individual daemons, but with packages it's
per-host.  With rook it's a per-cluster option (rook currently handles
any upgrade/downgrade), so there is already some ambiguity and cleanup
opportunity here.

sage
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux