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 989BE92065 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:54:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 737672E5F for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:54:08 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:54:06 +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 A747848534 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:54:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45d9bc1b-0d69-43c2-9aa3-3066e72a4612@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:54:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240215094056.66233-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <20240215094056.66233-2-f.weber@proxmox.com> <2e541a87-4996-4630-b4bf-87f8308463b5@proxmox.com> From: Friedrich Weber In-Reply-To: <2e541a87-4996-4630-b4bf-87f8308463b5@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.083 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 - 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] applied: [PATCH ceph master 1/3] fix #5213: ceph-osd postinst: add patch to avoid connection freezes 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, 16 Feb 2024 13:54:38 -0000 On 15/02/2024 14:16, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: [...] > > applied, thanks! > > as talked off-list, ceph is really not trying to reduce confusion potential > doing things like: > > install -D -m 644 etc/sysctl/90-ceph-osd.conf $(DESTDIR)/etc/sysctl.d/30-ceph-osd.conf > > I.e., having it checked in as 90-... but installing it as 30-.. Seems like the rpm installs it as 90-ceph-osd.conf though :) https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/fda8b5acbd7381dc4d86d7df5389e22aacffec22/ceph.spec.in#L1526 > And while I think the argument for "admin could have overrides that this > affects", which you mentioned that Fabian brought up off-list, is fine, > but is just as true on initial installation. > > What might be better is one (or some) of: [...]> - drop our odd disabling of the `net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables` For PVE this might make sense independently of what ceph-osd postinst does. We've been explicitly disabling the setting since 2012 though [1] -- will try to find out if this is still needed. If we drop it, would this be a breaking chance and need to wait for PVE 9? [1] https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-cluster.git;a=commit;h=501839cac97f68d4dcba21df6fb3797b976e9e56