From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9551B6023A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 17:43:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F26A3BC
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 17:42:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A84B23AE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 17:42:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 04D434557D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Feb 2022 17:42:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <01f8c7af-dbf2-befe-450b-9ad5739c87fe@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 17:42:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/97.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
References: <20220204095006.127477-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220204095006.127477-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.060 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: osd: warn if removal could be
 problematic
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 16:43:11 -0000

On 04.02.22 10:50, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> If an OSD is removed during the wrong conditions, it could lead to
> blocked IO or worst case data loss.
> 
> Check against global flags that limit the capabilities of Ceph to heal
> itself (norebalance, norecover, noout) and if there are degraded
> objects.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> Those are the things to check for that came to mind. If someone thinks
> that we should definitely check for more, I am happy to send a v2.
> 
> I am also open to suggestions on how to phrase the warnings better.
> 
> I opted for separate hints to be able to show detailed hints so the
> users have an idea how to act on the warning and to keep the logic
> behind them simple.

independent of what we then check, this should actually but a load mask on the dialogue
or the like, as else it may be to late if backend is slow and/or network latency between
UI and PVE is high (E.g., the coverage @ deutsches eck gives me about 10 to 15s spikes
when travelling through via train, not that I expect to delete OSDs from there in
production critical setups anytime soon ;)