Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-07-05 Thread Lars Marowsky-Bree
On 2017-06-30T16:48:04, Sage Weil wrote: > > Simply disabling the tests while keeping the code in the distribution is > > setting up users who happen to be using Btrfs for failure. > > I don't think we can wait *another* cycle (year) to stop testing this. > > We can,

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-07-04 Thread Lionel Bouton
Le 04/07/2017 à 19:00, Jack a écrit : > You may just upgrade to Luminous, then replace filestore by bluestore You don't just "replace" filestore by bluestore on a production cluster : you transition over several weeks/months from the first to the second. The two must be rock stable and have

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-07-04 Thread Jack
You may just upgrade to Luminous, then replace filestore by bluestore Don't be scared, as Sage said: > The only good(ish) news is that we aren't touching FileStore if we can > help it, so it less likely to regress than other things. And we'll > continue testing filestore+btrfs on jewel for

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-07-04 Thread Lionel Bouton
Le 30/06/2017 à 18:48, Sage Weil a écrit : > On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Lenz Grimmer wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> >> On 06/30/2017 05:21 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >> >>> The easiest thing is to >>> >>> 1/ Stop testing filestore+btrfs for luminous onward. We've recommended >>> against btrfs for a long time and are

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread Wido den Hollander
> Op 30 juni 2017 om 18:48 schreef Sage Weil : > > > On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > > Hi Sage, > > > > On 06/30/2017 05:21 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > > > > The easiest thing is to > > > > > > 1/ Stop testing filestore+btrfs for luminous onward. We've recommended

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread ceph
On 30/06/2017 18:48, Sage Weil wrote: > We can, however, > > - prominently feature this in the luminous release notes, and > - require the 'enable experimental unrecoverable data corrupting features = > btrfs' in order to use it, so that users are explicitly opting in to > luminous+btrfs

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread Sage Weil
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > Hi Sage, > > On 06/30/2017 05:21 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > > The easiest thing is to > > > > 1/ Stop testing filestore+btrfs for luminous onward. We've recommended > > against btrfs for a long time and are moving toward bluestore anyway. > >

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread Christian Balzer
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 16:29:43 + David Turner wrote: > I actually don't see either of these as issues with just flat out saying > that Btrfs will not be supported in Luminous. It's a full new release and > it sounds like it is no longer a relevant Filestore backend in Luminous. > People can

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread David Turner
I actually don't see either of these as issues with just flat out saying that Btrfs will not be supported in Luminous. It's a full new release and it sounds like it is no longer a relevant Filestore backend in Luminous. People can either plan to migrate their OSDs to Bluestore once they reach

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread Sean Purdy
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Lenz Grimmer said: > > 1/ Stop testing filestore+btrfs for luminous onward. We've recommended > > against btrfs for a long time and are moving toward bluestore anyway. > > Searching the documentation for "btrfs" does not really give a user any > clue that the use of Btrfs

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread Lenz Grimmer
Hi Sage, On 06/30/2017 05:21 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > The easiest thing is to > > 1/ Stop testing filestore+btrfs for luminous onward. We've recommended > against btrfs for a long time and are moving toward bluestore anyway. Searching the documentation for "btrfs" does not really give a user

Re: [ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-30 Thread Peter Maloney
On 06/30/17 05:21, Sage Weil wrote: > We're having a series of problems with the valgrind included in xenial[1] > that have led us to restrict all valgrind tests to centos nodes. At teh > same time, we're also seeing spurious ENOSPC errors from btrfs on both > centos on xenial kernels[2],

[ceph-users] dropping filestore+btrfs testing for luminous

2017-06-29 Thread Sage Weil
We're having a series of problems with the valgrind included in xenial[1] that have led us to restrict all valgrind tests to centos nodes. At teh same time, we're also seeing spurious ENOSPC errors from btrfs on both centos on xenial kernels[2], making trusty the only distro where btrfs works