On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:01 AM Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@xxxxxx> wrote: > > * Ceph users will benefit from both approaches being supported into the future > > this is rather important for us as well. > > we use systemd-nspawn based containers (that act and are managed like > traditional VMs, just without the overhead). > > cephadm enforces not just containers, but particular ones (granted, > docker/podman are the currently most used container-runtimes). I'm not familiar with systemd-nspawn, but maybe it could be supported. I suspect the primary challenge would be making it consume the OCI container image, or producing some alternative build artifact that takes its place. cephadm controls everything via systemd units, so in that regard the experience should be consistent either way. sage _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |