On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 4:10 AM Dan van der Ster <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > The crush rule min_size property is easily confused with pool min_size. > One could imagine a data loss scenario where an operator "fixed" a > misconfigured cluster by setting the crush rule min_size to 2 (but > left a pool min_size at 1). > > Should we rename one of them (... the crush one)? ... e.g. min_osds/max_osds ? > > Going further, do we even have a use-case for manually changing a > crush_rule's min_size/max_size. Could we simply hide them and hardcode > internally to min_size=1 and max_size=100? When we made the transition from rulesets to rules several years back this was the end goal, but we didn't get all of the way there. I can't quite remember why, but I think at this point (since all traces of rulesets are gone) we should have an easier time removing these fields entirely. sage _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
