> >>> Package based Ceph deployments, while popular, are not a good choice > >>> in general. The very simple reason is that it makes upgrades more > >>> dangerous: you can unintentionally upgrade services in the wrong > order > >>> due to failovers. > >> > >> Or when a node crashes / reboots during an upgrade. This has > happened > >> to me. > >> > >> > > > > Hmmm, that is not really nice to read that ceph is so picky that > everything can go wrong with just a minor update on a single node. > > Then if you really want to stick with package installs, deploy every > service on a separate node. Your DC runneth over. > > > I am not sure if that is a good direction for development. > > Hence the increasing motivations for container installations, which are > by nature immune from this dynamic. >
I don't know about that, you just move the issue from ceph daemons to container daemons. If I remember correctly, I even read something here on the list about podman version problems there. And since a lot is going still via hosts configs not volumes assigned to the task, changes between the host and the task image could also complicate things. Didn't I read recently something with lvm.conf or so? > > I would expect ceph to be more robust. > > It's not a function of Ceph, but robustness is exactly the goal. So what is then all this nonsense of having a minor upgrade on a node? I have never seen any issues with apache httpd, mariadb, postgres etc. Nor with ceph for that matter. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
