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 9551B6023A for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Aaron Lauterer References: <20220204095006.127477-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 > --- > > 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 ;)