[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
Indeed, sorry about that - I've become so used to backports having the latest version, I was testing with 2.17. I now upgraded to artful, and 2.18 now does the right thing: ❱❱❱ sudo lxd init Do you want to configure a new storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]? Name of the new storage pool [default=default]: Name of the storage backend to use (dir, btrfs) [default=btrfs]: Would you like to create a new btrfs subvolume under /var/lib/lxd (yes/no) [default=yes]: Thanks again! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
What you described above is the old behavior, LXD 2.18 should instead get you: Do you want to configure a new storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]? Name of the new storage pool [default=default]: Name of the storage backend to use (dir, btrfs) [default=btrfs]: Would you like to create a new subvolume for the BTRFS storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]: -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
Thanks! That already makes a lot more sense, although it's still quite a bit more complicated than necessary, and for sure a lot more complicated than earlier versions that "just worked": ❱❱❱ sudo lxd init Do you want to configure a new storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]? → ok, I suppose yes Name of the new storage pool [default=default]: → seems plausible Name of the storage backend to use (dir, btrfs) [default=dir]: btrfs → could default to btrfs if /var/lib/lxd is on btrfs Create a new BTRFS pool (yes/no) [default=yes]? → that is either redundant or confusing Would you like to use an existing block device (yes/no) [default=no]? → IMHO this shouldn't even be asked, but as long as "no" works.. Would you like to create a new subvolume for the BTRFS storage pool (yes/no) [default=yes]: → "yes" is the only plausible answer, as I already said that I wanted to create a btrfs storage backend Would you like LXD to be available over the network (yes/no) [default=no]? → finally done, and onwards to networking questions :) But this was already the difference between "failure" (or "wreck your hard disk") and "got it working", so thanks again for fixing! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
This bug was fixed in the package lxd - 2.18-0ubuntu1
---
lxd (2.18-0ubuntu1) artful; urgency=medium
* New upstream release (LP: #1718342)
- The btrfs filesystem can now be used on LVM and Ceph storage pools.
- Our internal "lxd-benchmark" tool is now a first class utility.
- "lxd-benchmark" can now generate performance reports.
- It's now possible to move a running container in the background,
only stopping it at the last minute (using --stateless option).
- A new "ceph.osd.force_reuse" storage pool property was added to
limit accidental import of used Ceph pools.
- client: Reduce request logging to Debug level
- doc: Link to release notes and downloads
- doc: Tweak docker instructions
- lxc/delete: Fix the --force description
- lxc/image: Fix import crash when adding properties
- lxc/move: Use force on delete
- lxd-benchmark: Big code refactoring
- lxd/apparmor: Support new stacking syntax
- lxd/containers: Check for container mountpoint too
- lxd/containers: Fix handling of major and minor numbers in device IDs
- lxd/containers: Remove from db on storage failure
- lxd/daemon: Refactoring of State as a separate package
- lxd/daemon: Reset the images auto-update loop when configuration changes
- lxd/db: Add db/query sub-package with common query helpers
- lxd/db: Add db/schema sub-package for managing database schemas
- lxd/db: Automatically generate database schema from database updates
- lxd/events: Fix race condition in event handlers
- lxd: Fix typo in comment
- lxd/images: Fix ordering of compressor arguments
- lxd/images: Fix private image copy with partial fp
- lxd/images: Properly extract the image expiry
- lxd/init: Code refactoring
- lxd/init: Fix btrfs subvolume creation
- lxd/init: Improve default storage backend selection
- lxd/init: Re-order btrfs questions (LP: #1717771)
- lxd/main: Fix error message when log path is missing
- lxd/migration: Fix live migration (bad URL in dumpsuccess)
- lxd/networks: Allow for duplicate IPs
- lxd/networks: Don't require ipt_checksum
- lxd/networks: Fix bridging devices with IPv6 link-local
- lxd/networks: Make dnsmasq quiet when not in debug mode
- lxd/networks: Only add --quiet options to dnsmasq if it supports it
- lxd/networks: Switch to a directory based dhcp-host
- lxd/patches: Make dir pool use bind-mount
- lxd/patches: Move patch to the right part of the file
- lxd/storage: Don't mask error messages
- lxd/storage: Extend makeFSType, remove duplicated mkfs.* code
- lxd/storage: If volume creation fails, delete DB entry
- lxd/storage: Only validate config changes
- lxd/storage/ceph: Add note about filesystems for Ceph cluster
- lxd/storage/ceph: Fix divide error in size calculation
- lxd/storage/ceph: Generate a new xfs UUID
- lxd/storage/ceph: Implement resizing
- lxd/storage/ceph: Sanitize path return from rbd map
- lxd/storage/ceph: Set ACL on container copy
- lxd/storage/ceph: Use Storage{Start,Stop}()
- lxd/storage/ceph: Use UUID when creating zombie storage volumes
- lxd/storage/dir: Use bind-mount for pools outside ${LXD_DIR}
- lxd/storage/dir: Use correct function
- lxd/storage/lvm: Generate a new xfs UUID on thinpool copy
- lxd/storage/lvm: Report error on wrong storage type
- lxd/storage/lvm: Require resize request to be at least 1MB
- lxd/storage/zfs: Use "referenced" property when zfs.use_refquota=true
- shared: Add helpers to parse/compare versions
- shared: Fix growing of buf in GroupId
- shared: Guess size when sysconf() returns*1
- shared/api: Fix new golint warning
- shared/idmap: Disallow hostids intersecting subids
- shared/idmap: Move idmap/acl functions to a separate package
- shared/subtest: Vendor the subtest package
- tests: Add more ceph tests
- tests: Add support for LXD_TMPFS to perf.sh
- tests: Add test for disallowing hostid in subuid
- tests: Also measure batch startup time in perf.sh
- tests: Bump image auto update limit to 20min
- tests: Ceph test volume resizing
- tests: Container import fixes
- tests: Don't copy running lvm/ceph containers
- tests: Include LVM in image auto update
- tests: Limit ceph volumes to 25MB
- tests: Lower pg number for OSD pools
- tests: Non-functional changes
- tests: Resize block size to 200MB
- tests: Use "--force" everywhere on stop
- tests: Use testimage for perf testing
- tests: Wait up to 2 minutes for image updates
-- Stéphane Graber Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:47:37
-0400
** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771
Title:
confusing btrfs storage pool creation
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu) Status: Triaged => Fix Committed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu) Assignee: Alberto Donato (ack) => Stéphane Graber (stgraber) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
Somewhat related, we should also change our default storage backend logic to be a bit more clever: 1) If shared.VarPath() is btrfs and btrfs tools are available, select btrfs 2) If zfs tools are available, select zfs 3) If btrfs tools are available, select btrfs 4) Fallback to dir -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
ack: Can you send a branch for this? We're looking at re-ordering the "create new subvolume" btrfs question to be immediately after selecting btrfs (if it's applicable). ** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu) Status: New => Triaged ** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => Low ** Changed in: lxd (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Alberto Donato (ack) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
The order I listed above is from 2.17, so there's still room for improvement there. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
That's with LXD 2.12? Martin, can you try LXD 2.17 iirc quite some things have changed from 2.12 on, including btrfs detection and querying at start. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
Thanks for that, Stéphane! Indeed saying "no" at question 4 wasn't obvious. Question 5 makes sense, I just didn't get that far. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
We certainly should be doing a better job at detecting existing btrfs and having "lxd init" default to something sane in that case. For the record I believe the expected flow is: 1) Create new storage pool => yes 2) Name of storage backend => btrfs 3) Create new BTRFS pool => yes 4) Would you like to use an existing block => no 5) Would you like to create a new subvolume => yes Now I think it'd make sense for 5 to be moved to 3 as that's what most people will want in such cases. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1717771] Re: confusing btrfs storage pool creation
Also, while I know that /dev/sda is my hard disk, so I typed that in, it's not very friendly to expect that every user will be able to do that. The script could detect available block devices and give you a choice? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717771 Title: confusing btrfs storage pool creation To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1717771/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
