From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
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 92657D226
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:16:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7346016996
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:15:44 +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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:15:43 +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 39C3F482E9
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 16:15:43 +0200 (CEST)
References: <20230907094942.74479-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
 <398db91c-0244-4a0d-912a-73c77333939a@proxmox.com>
 <ee5e4e70-e381-4f29-bbd0-1021f5f97f34@proxmox.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.10.7; emacs 29.1
From: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik
 Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:42:03 +0200
In-reply-to: <ee5e4e70-e381-4f29-bbd0-1021f5f97f34@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <s8ojzslx75d.fsf@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.003 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/2] ceph: remove global pg bits
 setting
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:16:14 -0000


Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> writes:

> @maximiliano: how does ceph react if one sets this currently?
> I.e., does it silently accepts unknown config keys, or does it break
> something?

Running

    ceph config set global osd_pg_bits 42

results in

    Error EINVAL: unrecognized config option 'osd_pg_bits'

Having them set on /etc/pve/ceph.conf on the other hand does not throw
any kind of warning as far as I can tell, but I suspect it does not do
anything either.

Please tell if I am missing something or if I should do a new version of
the patch.

--
Maximiliano