Bug 1228846

Summary:	ceph-deploy: echo out RGW port number
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage	Reporter:	Federico Lucifredi <flucifre>
Component:	Ceph-Installer	Assignee:	Travis Rhoden <trhoden>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	ceph-qe-bugs <ceph-qe-bugs>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	1.3.0	CC:	adeza, aschoen, ceph-eng-bugs, flucifre, kdreyer, nthomas, sankarshan
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	1.3.1
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-06-08 22:49:59 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Federico Lucifredi 2015-06-05 21:52:43 UTC

Description of problem:

the install experience of RGW with Civet is remarkably smooth, report QE and Docu. They can setup RGW with just:

ceph-deploy install --rgw <node-name> && ceph-deploy rgw create <node-name> 

After preflight, and it just works.

So, what's the problem? Well, we are defaulting to port 7480, which is obscure, and even if we change to a more predictable 8080, it still makes sense to explicitly say where it is after install.

the request is to echo out the port number RGW is running at as part of the results of ceph-deploy row create. Something like:

RGW is now running on port 7480.

Comment 2 Travis Rhoden 2015-06-08 14:50:21 UTC

This BZ and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228842 were created just a few minutes apart, and are basically the same thing, with this BZ being the latter.  However, this BZ is tarted at 1.3.0 and the other at 1.3.1, so I'm a bit confused (and neither have ACKs set so I don't know if they are approved).

From IRC, I think the intent is to have this simple echo show up in 1.3.0, which means I need to do this *now*.  Once that is in, is the intent to then expand the help message per John Wilkins suggestion under the other BZ?

Comment 3 Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) 2015-06-08 16:12:38 UTC

Federico, I think we should close this as a duplicate of bz 1228842 (which is targeted to 1.3.1). Do you agree?

Comment 4 Federico Lucifredi 2015-06-08 22:49:59 UTC

Ken: I do concur. and I like JW's suggestion we document in the config file how to change port, so closing this bug as duplicate of the other one.

Travis: Yes, I would like this fix, as it is one line and carries no risk. Unfortunately, we do not have confidence we can crack the build and get the same exact bits (as well as convince QE that this is Ok), so we are punting to 1.3.1.

In the July planning session, we will tackle how to make these zero-risk changes possible without upsetting the QE process. For now, we will pass and take "ship on time" as our victory for 1.3.0.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1228842 ***