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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6F5E89C16 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:14:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8FD832682E for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:14:29 +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 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:14:28 +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 2DC3F44A55 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:14:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:14:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3 To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220706130126.282308-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US 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 -0.046 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 widget-toolkit/manager v2 0/4] Ceph OSD: add detail infos 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, 18 Oct 2022 09:14:29 -0000 On 10/17/22 16:29, Dominik Csapak wrote: > high level looks mostly good, a small question: > > is there a special reason why we ignore pre-lvm osds here? > AFAICS, we simply error out for osds that don't live on lvm > (though we can add additional types later i guess) Mainly because with a recent Ceph version, you shouldn't have any pre Bluestore OSDs anymore. With Quincy, they have officially been deprecated. And even before, for quite a few versions, every new OSD would be a bluestore one. So I did not want to do the work for the old filestore OSDs. Once a new generation of OSDs becomes available, we will need to handle them as well though. > > comments in the individual patches >