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 CCB636E493 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:05:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C34CB1AA2 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:05:20 +0200 (CEST) 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 45E541A96 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:05:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1007441B8D for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:05:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <64cc9102-e3c9-ef1e-9e2d-1f64f1e87117@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:05:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Aaron Lauterer References: <20220328111041.1732567-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220328111041.1732567-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.055 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. [osd.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/2] api: osd: return block devices instead of dm node 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: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:05:20 -0000 On 28.03.22 13:10, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > Returning the block devices is more useful than the device node. The > device node usually points to the DM device for bluestore OSDs: > /dev/dm-x > > In almost all situations one will be interested in the physical device > underneath, /dev/sdX or /dev/nvmeXnY. In the rare case that someone > isn't, then one can get a lot of more information by running > `ceph osd metadata `. > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer > --- > PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm b/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm > index 93433b3a..c3d1384e 100644 > --- a/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm > +++ b/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm > @@ -143,9 +143,9 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ > if ($e->{type} eq 'osd' && $osdmd) { > if ($osdmd->{bluefs}) { > $new->{osdtype} = 'bluestore'; > - $new->{blfsdev} = $osdmd->{bluestore_bdev_dev_node}; > - $new->{dbdev} = $osdmd->{bluefs_db_dev_node}; > - $new->{waldev} = $osdmd->{bluefs_wal_dev_node}; > + $new->{blfsdev} = $osdmd->{bluestore_bdev_devices}; > + $new->{dbdev} = $osdmd->{bluefs_db_devices}; > + $new->{waldev} = $osdmd->{bluefs_wal_devices}; > } else { > $new->{osdtype} = 'filestore'; > } "device_ids" (e.g.: "sdb=HGST_HDN724040ALE640_PK2334PEGNVD6T") could be also interesting, but probably separately as its a bit longer but still, could avoid a extra shell lookup. For the UI patch: do we want to hint when the db/wal is on the OSD itself as fallback?