On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Sebastian Wagner wrote: > > > - The 'name' here, IIUC, is the name of the grouping of daemons. I think > > > it was intended to be a file system, as per the docs: > > > > > > The ``name`` parameter is an identifier of the group of instances: > > > > > > * a CephFS file system for a group of MDS daemons, > > > * a zone name for a group of RGWs > > > > > > but IIRC the new CephFS behavior is that all standby daemons go into the > > > same pool and are doled out to file systems that need them arbitrarily. > > > > We use this to set the name of the Rook CR, and this is afaik still > > supposed to be the fs name. > > Patrick: this will be confusing the rook case too, right? Imagine two > CephFileSystem CRs, each saying 3 mds daemons, but in reality the pool of > 6 MDSs will be assigned randomly-ish to either fs? That's correct. MDSs are not distinguished in any way by the mons. We should just use random alphabetical names for each daemon. There may come a day when we want to assign new MDS daemons to a particular FS. The most justifiable reason for it would be that a production FS needs MDSs with more memory. I think we should do it differently than with per-MDS configurations we had before. We would also want to consider stretch clusters; the previous configurations didn't describe that scenario easily. -- Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D. He / Him / His Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
