Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Specify block device by id #2158

Closed
Vanuan opened this issue Sep 26, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Specify block device by id #2158

Vanuan opened this issue Sep 26, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@Vanuan
Copy link

Vanuan commented Sep 26, 2018

Is this a bug report or feature request?

  • Feature Request

What should the feature do:

Currently devices can be specified like these:

    nodes:
    - name: "server"
      devices:             # specific devices to use for storage can be specified for each node
      - name: "sdb"
      - name: "sdc"

I'd like to be able to specify them like this

    nodes:
    - name: "server"
      devices:             # specific devices to use for storage can be specified for each node
      - name: "disk/by-id/ata-xxx"
      - name: "disk/by-id/ata-yyy"

What is use case behind this feature:

I believe this will allow hotswapping disks in any order.

On the other hand, disk replacements would require configuration to be changed.

Environment:

@Vanuan
Copy link
Author

Vanuan commented Sep 26, 2018

Maybe this use case is stupid?

What would happen if I swap 2 disks? E.g. sdb -> sdc and sdc -> sdb?

@jbw976
Copy link
Member

jbw976 commented Sep 26, 2018

hi @Vanuan thanks for your suggestion, I think this is being tracked in #1228 already, take a look at that. The ceph OSD orchestrator under the covers points Ceph at the specific/unique UUID for the device, so even if the device name changes from say sda to sdb, the OSD will never start using the wrong device. So data integrity will be protected.

However, as #1228 gets into, the user experience here is what needs to be improved. Allowing the user more options for selecting devices by more "stable" identifiers would definitely be an improvement. I'm going to close this issue here and keep tracking with #1228.

@jbw976 jbw976 closed this as completed Sep 26, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants