> Note the difference of convention in ceph command presentation. In > https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/troubleshooting/troubleshooting-mon/#understanding-mon-status, > mon.X uses X to represent the portion of the command to be replaced by the > operator with a specific value. However, that may not be clear to all > readers, some of whom may read that as a literal X. I recommend switching > convention to something that makes visually explicit any portion of a > command that an operator has to replace with a specific value. One such > convention is to use <> as delimiters marking the portion of a command that > an operator has to replace with a specific value, minus the delimiters > themselves. I'm sure there are other conventions that would accomplish the > same goal and provide the <> convention as an example only. Yes, this is one of my main gripes. Many of the doc parts should more visibly point out which words or parts of names are the ones that you chose (by selecting a hostname for instance), it gets weird when you see "mon-1" or "client.rgw.rgw1" and you don't know which of those are to be changed to suit your environment and which are not. Sometimes the "ceph" word sneaks into paths because it is the name of the software (duh) but sometimes because it is the clustername. Now I don't hope many people change their clustername, but if you did, docs would be hard to follow in order to figure out where to replace "ceph" with your cluster name. > Also, the actual name of a mon is not clear due to the variety of mon name > formats. The value of the NAME column returned by ceph orch ps > --daemon-type mon and the return from ceph mon dump follow the format of > mon.<host> whereas the value of name returned by ceph tell <mon_name> > mon_status, the mon line returned by ceph -s, and the return from ceph mon > stat follow the format of <host>. Unifying the return for the mon name > value of all those commands could be helpful in establishing the format of > a mon name, though that is probably easier said than done. > > In addition, in > https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/configuration/mon-config-ref/#configuring-monitors, > mon names are stated to use alpha notation by convention, but that > convention is not followed by cephadm in the clusters that I've deployed. > Cephadm also uses a minimal ceph.conf file with configs in the mon > database. I recommend this section be updated to mention those changes. If > there is a way to explain what a mon name is or how it is formatted, > perhaps adding that to that same section would be good. -- May the most significant bit of your life be positive. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |