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

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

 



On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Stefan Kooman <stefan@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/21/21 6:19 PM, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> > And while we are at claiming "on a lot more platforms", you are at the
> > same time EXCLUDING a lot of platforms by saying "Linux based
> > container" (remember Ceph on FreeBSD? [0]).
>
> Indeed, and that is a more fundamental question: how easy it is to make
> Ceph a first-class citizen on non linux platforms. Was that ever a
> (design) goal? But then again, if you would be able to port docker
> natively to say OpenBSD, you should be able to run Ceph on it as well.

Thank you for bringing this up.  This is in fact a key reason why the
orchestration abstraction works the way it does--to allow other
runtime environments to be supported (FreeBSD!
sysvinit/Devuan/whatever for systemd haters!) while ALSO allowing an
integrated, user-friendly experience in which users workflow for
adding/removing hosts, replacing failed OSDs, managing services (MDSs,
RGWs, load balancers, etc) can be consistent across all platforms.
For 10+ years we basically said "out of scope" to these pesky
deployment details and left this job to Puppet, Chef, Ansible,
ceph-deploy, rook, etc., but the result of that strategy was pretty
clear: ceph was hard to use and the user experience dismal when
compared to an integrated product from any half-decent enterprise
storage company, or products like Martin's that capitalize on core
ceph's bad UX.

The question isn't whether we support other environments, but how.  As
I mentioned in one of my first messages, we can either (1) generalize
cephadm to work in other environments (break the current
systemd+container requirement), or (2) add another orchestrator
backend that supports a new environment.  I don't have any well-formed
opinion here.  There is a lot of pretty generic "orchestration" logic
in cephadm right now that isn't related to systemd or containers that
could either be pulled out of cephadm into the mgr/ochestrator layer
or a library.  Or an independent, fresh orch backend implementation
could opt for a very different approach or set of opinions.

Either way, my assumption has been that these other environments would
probably not be docker|podman-based.  In the case of FreeBSD we'd
probably want to use jails or whatever.  But anything is possible.

s
_______________________________________________
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