Re: limit of maximum number of rbd devices that can be mapped

[Danny Al-Gaaf <danny@bisect.de>]

Am 02.11.2012 12:22, schrieb Sage Weil:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Danny Al-Gaaf wrote:
[...]
>> Any news on this? We have seen the same issues here.
>>
>> IMO the RBD code should to something similar to some other block drivers:
>>
>> 1) reserve a major block number for RBD in general (or use the number
>> returned from the register_blkdev call, if there is no number we can
>> reserve in general for RBD, see [1])
>>
>> 2) Use this major number for all RBDs on this machine and handle each
>> new RBD via different minor numbers.
>>
>> If we can agree on this I would take a look into it and send a patch.
> 
> We should probably do what SCSI does, where the minor for each device 
> jumps by 16 to leave room for partitions.

That's exactly what I would propose. I wasn't sure if we really need to
leave the room for the partitions, since I'm not sure if they really
need to have contiguous numbers, but I guess there are some tools which
expect it.

> There was a thread on this a couple of weeks ago that mmy slow internet is 
> preventing me from finding... :)

My internet connection isn't that slow here in Amsterdam ;-) ... but I
couldn't find another thread about this topic.

Do you remember if someone already is working on this?

Danny