[Deepsea-users] stage 1: network discovery
rdias at suse.com
Mon Dec 12 09:54:58 MST 2016
On 2016-12-12 11:26:13, Eric Jackson wrote:
> On Monday, December 12, 2016 03:50:15 PM Ricardo Dias wrote:
> > On 2016-12-12 10:28:10, Eric Jackson wrote:
> > I'm using a cluster created in OVH cloud provider. Every node has a
> > different IP address, but have a netmask of /32. The IP addresses are
> > public and the access rules are controlled by the security group of
> > the instances.
> I haven't tried OVH.
> > I think we can assume that all networks (in this case there is a network
> > for each node) are public. And by reading the "Network Configuration"
> Maybe in this instance, but if I have 4 network interfaces on a host, why
> would I assume that all are public? In the comments of the code, I wrote that
> this is a best guess but it seems to be reasonable so far.
> > section  in Ceph documentation, we can specify several public
> > networks. This means we just need to extend a bit the code to deal with
> > a list of public networks instead of only one.
> > The rule for network detection should be:
> > Given a set of networks NTS:
> > 1) if each network in NTS only contains one node, then we consider all
> > networks public
> > 2) otherwise we fallback to the current logic, which is:
> > pick the network with more nodes as the public network, and the
> > second with more nodes as the cluster network.
> I think I would prefer reversing the behavior. That is, if nothing can be
> deduced, then check if all nodes have a single network and apply the list to
> both the cluster and public networks.
> If I have several hosts with two networks, but a few of the hosts are
> experiencing an issue with one network, I would prefer the current behavior.
> Stage 1 would write the configuration and the validation would fail that some
> nodes do not seem to have a cluster network. (I think it would be hard for
> Salt to work without a public network, but I'm sure there's a way.)
> If I follow the above, the entire cluster will be deployed and the admin will
> learn that all nodes are configured to use a single network. While there is a
> few ways out of that scenario, I do not want to put them into it initially.
I don't understand what you said above. Is this a justification to
reverse the order that I proposed? If it is, I agree :)
> > > > - Why is DS storing the "public_network" and "cluster_network" in
> > > >
> > > > "pillar/ceph/stack/default/ceph/cluster.yml"? What are their purposes?
> > > > Do we really need them?
> > >
> > > Take a look at /srv/salt/ceph/configuration/files/ceph.conf.j2. The
> > > public and cluster networks are specified there.
> > As I said in the comment above, we can add a list of public networks in
> > the "public_network" config option.
> You asked why the variables are defined in the pillar. So, that this Jinja
> template can use them is my answer.
I understood what you meant. My comment was just a followup of my
> Converting the public_network/cluster_network to lists is not difficult, but
> thinking about the upgrade to SES5 needs to be thought about too.
I don't understand what converting public_network to lists has to do
with upgrading to SES5. Can you clarify?
> >  http://docs.ceph.com/docs/jewel/rados/configuration/network-config-ref/
More information about the Deepsea-users