Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

OSD devices should be specified by FQDN #106

Open
rdgold94 opened this issue Jul 11, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

OSD devices should be specified by FQDN #106

rdgold94 opened this issue Jul 11, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@rdgold94
Copy link

In the osd.rb recipe, devices are specified by the following node attribute:

devices = node['ceph']['osd']['devices']

As long as each node that this recipe runs on has the exact same OSD device, this works correctly. However, in some cases, nodes running the osd recipe may have different specifications for its devices. For instance, one node might have a volume called "/dev/vdb":

"osd": {
  "devices": [
    {
      "data": "/dev/vdb",
      "journal": "/dev/vdb"
    }
  ]
}

While another node has a volume called "/dev/vdc":

"osd": {
  "devices": [
    {
      "data": "/dev/vdc",
      "journal": "/dev/vdc"
    }
  ]
}

Ideally, we should be able to qualify OSD devices by FQDN so that we don't need to update the attribute every time we have an OSD with a differently named/type of device:

"<FQDN>": {
  "devices": [
    {
      "data": "/dev/vdc",
      "journal": "/dev/vdc"
    }
  ]
}
@hanscj1
Copy link
Contributor

hanscj1 commented Jul 14, 2017

I can see that but the initial thought was all nodes nodes would be similar configs. Could keep the default as is but add a fqdn attribute that would override the default for those that are different. I will take a look. Thanks

@hanscj1
Copy link
Contributor

hanscj1 commented Jul 14, 2017

Or, issue a PR ;)

@rdgold94
Copy link
Author

I've been doing some work with someone else on this cookbook, so you should see a pull request from them soon hopefully :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants