From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ken Dreyer Subject: systemd unit files and multiple daemons Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:57:12 -0600 Message-ID: <55381938.7010600@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47637 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756659AbbDVV5O (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:57:14 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "ceph-users@lists.ceph.com" I could really use some eyes on the systemd change proposed here: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11344 Specifically, on bullet #4 there, should we have a single "ceph-mon.service" (implying that users should only run one monitor daemon per server) or if we should support multiple "ceph-mon@" services (implying that users will need to specify additional information when starting the service(s)). The version in our tree is "ceph-mon@". James' work for Ubuntu Vivid is only "ceph-mon" [2]. Same thing for ceph-mds vs ceph-mds@. I'd prefer to keep Ubuntu downstream the same as Ceph upstream. What do we want to do for this? How common is it to run multiple monitor daemons or mds daemons on a single host? - Ken [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/master/systemd [2] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/vivid/ceph/vivid/files/head:/debian/lib-systemd/