Re: bug in rbd rename command?

[Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@profihost.ag>]

Am 19.04.2013 22:33, schrieb Sage Weil:
> I think we can make the --dest-pool default to --pool instead of rbd...
> that's easy enough, right?

Yes ;-) it doesn't hurt me but i've seen some people getting confused..

> sage
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Stefan Priebe wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>