From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Owen Synge Subject: Re: with "ceph-deploy osd create" logic check (before I write a patch) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:15:27 +0200 Message-ID: <53BE83DF.6060207@suse.com> References: <53BE68B0.5090907@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.emea.novell.com ([130.57.118.101]:56984 "EHLO mail.emea.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752173AbaGJMP4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:15:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <53BE68B0.5090907@suse.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Dear all, I chatted with Alfredodeza, on IRC and will try and make this code work without depending upon udev. Regards Owen On 07/10/2014 12:19 PM, Owen Synge wrote: > Dear All, > > This email is about > > $ ceph-deploy osd create ceph-node4:vdb > > and it not behaving identically too: > > $ ceph-deploy osd prepare ceph-node2:vdb > $ ceph-deploy osd activate ceph-node2:vdb1 > > It is my understanding that the following sequence should deploy ceph > correctly and activate an OSD. > > (on ceph setup server) > > $ ceph-deploy install ceph-node4 > $ ceph-deploy new ceph-node2 > $ ceph-deploy mon create-initial ceph-node2 > > (On actual node) > > # /etc/init.d/ceph start > > (on ceph setup server) > > $ ceph-deploy osd prepare ceph-node2:vdb > $ ceph-deploy osd activate ceph-node2:vdb1 > > and that the last two commands above can be replaced with: > > (on ceph setup server) > > $ ceph-deploy osd create ceph-node4:vdb > > and behind the scenes udev does the second process of activation rather > than use the command: > > (On actual node) > > # ceph-disk-activate --mark-init ${distro_init} --mount ${disk} > > it executes: > > (On actual node) > > # udevadm trigger --subsystem-match=block --action=add > > Is their a logic for the reason why > > $ ceph-deploy osd create ceph-node4:vdb > > Is described as both "prepare" and "activate" but in fact a different > command? Would you like a patch to make the code really do the same > thing, or am I missing some important deployment logic? > > Best regards > > Owen > > PS: > > Goes off to look at why the udev rules are failing and caused me to > notice this discrepancy. > -- > 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 >