From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Priebe Subject: Re: bug in rbd rename command? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:29:11 +0200 Message-ID: <5171A917.6040704@profihost.ag> References: <5170F217.9020105@profihost.ag> <5171A883.2040006@inktank.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ph.de-nserver.de ([85.158.179.214]:34493 "EHLO mail-ph.de-nserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753517Ab3DSU3M (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:29:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5171A883.2040006@inktank.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dan Mick Cc: "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" Am 19.04.2013 22:26, schrieb Dan Mick: > It's arguable, but we wanted to treat source and destination pools > separately in general. > > Note that you can also specify images as POOLNAME/a and POOLNAME/b. Sure i know that. But then -p does not make sense at all. Nobody want to use: rbd -p POOLFORA rename a POOLFORB/b Wouldn't it be constant to expand this for b? I mean renaming from poola to poolb isn't supported anyway ;-) Greets, Stefan > On 04/19/2013 12:28 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi, >> >> if i issue rbd -p POOLNAME ... rename a b >> >> It uses the POOL for a but not for b. >> >> Output is then: >> rbd: mv/rename across pools not supported >> source pool: vmstorssd1 dest pool: rbd >> >> Shouldn't it use the pool provided by -p for both? >> >> Stefan >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>