From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 674C2EC9A
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4521C6E37
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:08 +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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:07 +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 D83A944EA8;
Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <863bccd3-662c-7148-f62c-bb36076ad107@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.5.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alwin Antreich <alwin@antreich.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <8ade6295-3a6a-8e98-3310-a2085274c94d@proxmox.com>
<20221206154755.2073326-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20221206154755.2073326-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<1cfa70b807f858eea840bd040b9a83cd@antreich.com>
<efba3a351dbb0300cca8b46529888eea@antreich.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <efba3a351dbb0300cca8b46529888eea@antreich.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.041 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v4 1/3] api ceph osd: add OSD index,
metadata and lv-info
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 16:10:08 -0000
On 12/7/22 18:23, Alwin Antreich wrote:
> December 7, 2022 2:22 PM, "Aaron Lauterer" <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/22 12:15, Alwin Antreich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>
>> December 6, 2022 4:47 PM, "Aaron Lauterer" <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> wrote:
>>> To get more details for a single OSD, we add two new endpoints:
>>
>> * nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}/metadata
>> * nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}/lv-info
>>> As an idea for a different name for lv-info, `nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}/volume`? :)
>>
>> Could be done, as you would expect to get overall physical volume infos from it, right? So that the
>> endpoint won't change, once the underlying technology changes?
>
> Yes. It sounds more clear to me, as LV could mean something different. :P
>
Thinking about it a bit more, I am hesitant to rename the API endpoint. It is
very specific to LVs. Should a new generation of OSDs use something completely
different in the future, I would rather add a new API call handling it and not
adapt a currently existing one. Changing an established API endpoint is not
something that should be done lightly.