On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 12:28 -0800, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:17 AM, Radoslaw Zarzynski
> > In typical case ciphertext data transferred from OSD to OSD can be
> > used without change. This is when both OSDs have the same crypto key
> > version for given placement group. In r
On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 14:17 +0100, Radoslaw Zarzynski wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I would like to publish a proposal regarding improvements to Ceph
> data-at-rest encryption mechanism. Adam Kupczyk and I worked
> on that in last weeks.
>
> Initially we considered several architectural approaches an
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 06:10 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Martin Millnert wrote:
> > > Note that on a largish cluster the public/client traffic is all
> > > north-south, while the backend traffic is also mostly north-south to the
> > > top-of
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 06:48 -0800, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> >> I'm probably just being dense here, but I don't quite understand what
> >> all this is trying to accomplish. It looks like it's essentially
> >> trying to set up VLANs (with different rules) over a single physical
> >> network interface
Sage,
thanks for your feedback, please see below:
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 13:30 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, w...@42on.com wrote:
> > Why all the trouble and complexity? I personally always try to avoid the
> > two networks and run with one. Also in large L3 envs.
> >
> > I like
Greg,
see below.
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 13:25 -0800, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we're deploying Ceph on Linux for multiple purposes.
> > We want to build network isolation in our L3 DC network
Wido,
thanks for your feedback.
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 22:03 +0100, w...@42on.com wrote:
>
> > Op 3 dec. 2015 om 21:14 heeft Martin Millnert het
> > volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we're deploying Ceph on Linux for multiple purposes.
>
nd test it too. But before doing that, I'm
interested in feedback. Would obviously prefer it to be merged.
Regards,
Martin Millnert
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/632522/
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/vrf.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
86_64.rpm
/bin/bash
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/env
/usr/bin/python
[snip]
Seems virtualenv on the jenkins build host is affecting some python
path/env variable in the spec file somehow. Haven't dug further.
Regards,
--
Martin Millnert
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:43 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> When I was talking about a "parallel effort", what I meant is that
> we'd get vanilla civetweb upstream into the distros, and we'd also
> continue to bundle civetweb in Ceph, until we can reliably use the
> upstream Civetweb package.
That's wh
On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 15:38 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > Dunno about SuSE, but as a Fedora packager I would prefer if we (Ceph)
> > talked upstream into making regular releases and then for us to stop
> > carrying it entirely. One less git su
Hi devs,
it seems the below fell between chairs or similar:
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 19:43 +0100, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> >> It seems like Civetweb listens on 0.0.0.0 by default and that doesn't seem
> >> safe to me.
> I'd just suggest to bind on localhost by default and let the user choose
> o
Adding 2c
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 14:37 -0500, Mark Nelson wrote:
> My thought is that there is some inflection point where the userland
> kvstore/block approach is going to be less work, for everyone I think,
> than trying to quickly discover, understand, fix, and push upstream
> patches that so
Adding to this,
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 05:34 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, James (Fei) Liu-SSI wrote:
> > Hi Sage and Somnath,
> > In my humble opinion, There is another more aggressive solution than
> > raw block device base keyvalue store as backend for objectstore. The new
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
