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 808BCBBE37 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:53:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 58F61AC22 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:53:56 +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 ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:53:55 +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 18782487DC for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:53:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <40082f8a-ce7c-4a8a-b5b8-16a2f8d4c826@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:53:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20231218142507.505335-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> From: Mira Limbeck In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.224 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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: ceph installer: Run ceph/init if joining a cluster 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: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:53:56 -0000 On 12/19/23 18:09, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > The commit message doesn't explain the actual issue that it is trying to > solve. > AFAICT we do not need the ceph.conf symlinked right away for normal PVE > operations. If it is not present in /etc/ceph/ceph.conf, the RBD and > CephFS connections will use the dedicated parameters to connect and > authenticate against the Ceph cluster, which are all present in the > /etc/pve/priv... directory. > > And even in a newly set up HCI PVE + Ceph cluster, the symlink for the > Ceph config will only be created once you set up a Ceph service (MON, > MGR, MDS, OSD) on that node. > > Even with a valid use case (see first line of my response), I am not > sure if the UI is the right place, as a user can still run into the same > situation if they use 'pveceph install' on the CLI without running > 'pveceph init' afterwards. > Therefore, if there is a reason to always have the symlink, wouldn't it > be better to add it to the install routine to create the symlink if the > /etc/pve/ceph.conf file is detected? Yes, you're right. Since we call `pveceph install` even when installing from the GUI, that should be the place to add it. We've had a few cases where Ceph commands could not be run on the newly added host, even though Ceph was installed because of the missing symlink. Usually on a hyper-converged I'd assume that Ceph commands can simply be run without specifying a Ceph config, since that's how we set it up. But for newly added nodes that's currently not the case. This also affects the system reports, since we don't pass the Ceph config there at all for any of the Ceph commands. @Maximiliano: This info, the `why`, would have been great in the commit message.