canonical / canonical/charm-microceph
No way to specify Ceph deployment layout, MON, MON+OSD, OSD
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 22
- Avg merge
- 3d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
reef/edge: 47 2024-05-15 (47) 17MB amd64 ubuntu@22.04
https://bugs.launchpad.net/charm-microceph/+bug/2067282
Let's say a design is with 3 minimum hosts to have 3 replicas of Ceph MON+OSD, and other nodes will have OSD only to add more capacity to the cluster. As of today, there is no way to achieve that kind of designs since there is no way to differentiate MON, MON+OSD, OSD in Sunbeam deployments.
Why does having 3 MON statically matter? OpenStack itself doesn't react well to an event of adding/removing MONs e.g. https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1452641
And clients outside of Sunbeam managed needs static entry points to access Ceph data (It's pretty common to share a Ceph cluster between OpenStack workload such as VMs and other such as S3).
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No source file, test, or entry point is named. Start by reviewing how Sunbeam deployments currently assign Ceph MON and OSD roles, then compare that behavior with the three-host MON+OSD and additional OSD-only layout described here. Done means deployments can express that layout while preserving stable MON endpoints; the linked Launchpad bug provides additional context.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- infrastructure
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100