From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 9C762647E4 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:50:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 917122CD64 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:50:58 +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 8E0E82CD58 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:50:57 +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 61BD846D24; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:50:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <01a32358-484e-1c8b-61c9-e03b9df5dbae@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:50:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Alwin Antreich , Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <51d6f7da-3163-2fe4-05a3-dc63226088e0@proxmox.com> <1ae1d772-c466-5694-cf77-4018aedddafc@proxmox.com> <20220126160734.2868618-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <3dbb90bb8bfec2db7a08965c0301480f@antreich.com> <00b53f8566061be26bdf770332245ea9@antreich.com> <0e3081d0-3d09-798a-e4d2-209db646ae75@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.005 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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] rbd: add support for erasure coded ec pools X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:50:58 -0000 On 1/28/22 10:22, Alwin Antreich wrote: > January 28, 2022 6:50 AM, "Thomas Lamprecht" wrote: > >> On 27.01.22 17:28, Aaron Lauterer wrote: >> >>> Besides the whole "where to store the data-pool parameter" issue, having custom client configs per >>> storage would most likely be its own feature request. Basically extending the current way to >>> hyperconverged storages. Though that would mean some kind of config merging as the hyperconverged >>> situation relies heavily on the default Ceph config file. >>> I still see the custom config file as an option for the admin to add custom options, not to spread >>> the PVE managed settings when it can be avoided. >> >> Yeah config merging would be probably nicer if avoided, and we can add a >> `ceph-opt` like format-string property that allows access to most of the >> more relevant settings if demand comes up. > K. > > Would you guys have any objection, when I send a docs patch to document the current client conf possibility, under /etc/pve/priv/ceph/.conf? Or rather document it for /etc/pve/ceph.conf? What exactly do you mean? How to add custom config options for external cluster (/etc/pve/priv/ceph/.conf) and locally in the /etc/pve/ceph.conf AKA /etc/ceph/ceph.conf? Sure, AFAICS the custom .conf has been added in 2016 [0]. I did a quick search in the admin guide and did not find anything about it. [0] https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-storage.git;a=commit;h=1341722 > > @Aaron, or is it counter productive to what you try to do? Right now, I am only working out the EC pools (data-pool) parameter. Having the current possibilities documented is surely a good idea. Out of curiosity, do you have to use the custom configs often? > >> Anyhow, thanks to both of you for the constructive discussion, always >> appreciated. > :) > > Cheers, > Alwin >