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 674C2EC9A for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4521C6E37 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:08 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:07 +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 D83A944EA8; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <863bccd3-662c-7148-f62c-bb36076ad107@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 17:10:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Alwin Antreich Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <8ade6295-3a6a-8e98-3310-a2085274c94d@proxmox.com> <20221206154755.2073326-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20221206154755.2073326-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <1cfa70b807f858eea840bd040b9a83cd@antreich.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.041 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v4 1/3] api ceph osd: add OSD index, metadata and lv-info 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: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 16:10:08 -0000 On 12/7/22 18:23, Alwin Antreich wrote: > December 7, 2022 2:22 PM, "Aaron Lauterer" wrote: > >> On 12/7/22 12:15, Alwin Antreich wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >> December 6, 2022 4:47 PM, "Aaron Lauterer" wrote: >>> To get more details for a single OSD, we add two new endpoints: >> >> * nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}/metadata >> * nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}/lv-info >>> As an idea for a different name for lv-info, `nodes/{node}/ceph/osd/{osdid}/volume`? :) >> >> Could be done, as you would expect to get overall physical volume infos from it, right? So that the >> endpoint won't change, once the underlying technology changes? > > Yes. It sounds more clear to me, as LV could mean something different. :P > Thinking about it a bit more, I am hesitant to rename the API endpoint. It is very specific to LVs. Should a new generation of OSDs use something completely different in the future, I would rather add a new API call handling it and not adapt a currently existing one. Changing an established API endpoint is not something that should be done lightly.