Join GitHub today
PendingReleaseNotes: warning about 'osd rm ...' and #19119 #13731
Can't we force this in the monitor op?
AIUI, 'osd rm' semantics does imply losing the data anyway, so I don't think there's any gain by leaving the osd in the crushmap.
And forcing the user to run 'osd crush rm' followed by 'osd rm' just seems bad UX, besides being prone to error. We should, at least, check that the OSD has been removed from crush.
I will take upon myself getting that going if my rationale is correct/agreed upon.
Doing a ceph osd rm without ceph osd crush rm is part of the proposed workflow for osd replacement. We could change that to use a new command (ceph osd partial-remove or something) but either way the important thing here is that this not happen *during upgrade* when any new checks we might introduce aren't in place yet.