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 AB7C165C5E for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:54:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A92D197F7 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:54:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 2E3F797EA for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:54:12 +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 EC98F4329A for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:54:11 +0200 (CEST) To: Alwin Antreich , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20200723132514.510051-1-a.antreich@proxmox.com> <20200724094642.GC2185009@dona.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <70de89df-946b-a419-81ad-7f97a94f9181@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:54:10 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200724094642.GC2185009@dona.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.179 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.344 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record 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] applied: [PATCH manager] Allow setting device class on osd create 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, 24 Jul 2020 09:54:12 -0000 Am 7/24/20 um 11:46 AM schrieb Alwin Antreich: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:34:33AM +0200, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Am 7/23/20 um 3:25 PM schrieb Alwin Antreich: >>> In some situations Ceph's auto-detection doesn't recognize the device >>> class correctly. The option allows to set it directly on osd create, >>> instead of altering it afterwards. This way the cluster doesn't need to >>> shift data back and forth unnecessarily. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alwin Antreich >>> --- >>> PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm | 7 +++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>> >> >> applied, thanks - comments still inline >> >>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm b/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm >>> index ceaed129..f1f39bf9 100644 >>> --- a/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm >>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Ceph/OSD.pm >>> @@ -260,6 +260,11 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({ >>> default => 0, >>> description => "Enables encryption of the OSD." >>> }, >>> + 'crush-device-class' => { >>> + optional => 1, >>> + type => 'string', >>> + description => "Set the device class of the OSD in crush." >>> + }, >> >> why not having an enum with 'nvme', 'ssd', and 'hdd' here? > Ceph allows the class to be an arbitrary string, eg. my-very-fast-disk. > Is it then "auto-generated" or has ceph an index of known ones floating around? We could also add this to the UI, to advanced as editable KVCombobox which is emptyText "auto", and has "hdd", "nvme" and "ssd" as convenience selectors. If we can get all currently available ones also (relatively) cheaply we could add them too.