Hi Sebastien and thanks for your feedback. On 06.12.19 10:00, Sebastien Han wrote: > ceph-volume is a sunk cost! > And your argument basically falls into that paradigm, "oh we have > invested so much already, that we cannot stop and we should continue > even though this will only bring more trouble". Incapable of accepting > this sunk cost. > All the issues that have been fixed with a lot of pain. > All that pain could have been avoided if LVM wasn't there and pursuing > in that direction will only lead us to more pain again. The reason I disagree here is the scenario were the WAL/DB is on a separate device and a single OSD crashes. In that case you would like to recreate just that single OSD instead of the whole group. Also if we deprecate a tool such like we did with ceph-disk, users have to migrate sooner or later if they don't want to do everything manually on the CLI (by that I mean via fdisk/pure lvm commands and so on). We could argue now that this can still be done on the command line manually but all our efforts are towards simplicity/automation and having everything in the Dashboard. If the underlying tool/functionality isn't there anymore, that isn't possible. > Also, I'm not saying we should replace the tool but allow not using > LVM for a simple scenario to start with Which then leads me to, why couldn't such functionality be implemented into a single tool instead of having two at the end? So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm against everything I'm just saying that I think this is a topic that should be discussed in more depth. As said, just my two cents here. Kai -- SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D 90409 Nürnberg GF:Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer, (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
