Bug 1654660 - [RFE] Colocation of different Ceph daemons on containerized deployment
Summary: [RFE] Colocation of different Ceph daemons on containerized deployment
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Ceph Storage
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: Cephadm
Version: 3.1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: 5.1
Assignee: Adam King
QA Contact: Rahul Lepakshi
Ranjini M N
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1553254 2031073
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-11-29 11:18 UTC by Mikel Olasagasti
Modified: 2023-09-07 19:33 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version: ceph-16.2.6-2.el8cp
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
.`cephadm` supports colocating multiple daemons on the same host With this release, multiple daemons, such as Ceph Object Gateway and Ceph Metadata Server (MDS), can be deployed on the same host thereby providing an additional performance benefit. .Example ---- service_type: rgw placement: label: rgw count-per-host: 2 ---- For single node deployments, `cephadm` requires atleast two running Ceph Manager daemons in upgrade scenarios. It is still highly recommended even outside of upgrade scenarios but the storage cluster will function without it.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-04-04 10:19:51 UTC
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHCEPH-1972 0 None None None 2021-10-05 13:17:19 UTC
Red Hat Knowledge Base (Solution) 2109351 0 None None None 2020-03-25 12:52:27 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2022:1174 0 None None None 2022-04-04 10:20:26 UTC

Description Mikel Olasagasti 2018-11-29 11:18:58 UTC 
Currently collocation of one daemon (RGW, MON/MGR, MDS, ...) with an OSD daemon in containerized deployments is supported[1][2].

Customer requests to support collocation of any different daemon in the same host avoiding the restriction that one of the daemon is an OSD.

Customer present the following scenario:

- In the current architecture they have 4 physical nodes (1 OSD and 3 OSD+MON) and 2 physical nodes (RGW). 
- They would like to have 3 physical nodes (RGW+MON) and 4 physical nodes (OSD). 
- They plan to increase the number of OSD nodes in the future.

[1] https://red.ht/2PYhlw9
[2] https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2109351
Comment 5 Giridhar Ramaraju 2019-08-05 13:11:52 UTC 
Updating the QA Contact to a Hemant. Hemant will be rerouting them to the appropriate QE Associate. 

Regards,
Giri
Comment 6 Giridhar Ramaraju 2019-08-05 13:12:45 UTC 
Updating the QA Contact to a Hemant. Hemant will be rerouting them to the appropriate QE Associate. 

Regards,
Giri
Comment 9 Federico Lucifredi 2020-01-23 04:07:47 UTC 
With RHCS 4.0, the container co-location requirements have been further relaxed to allow a second co-located daemon in three-node clusters, in the following form:

N OSD + 1 additional scale out daemon + RGW
N OSD + 1 additional scale out daemon + RGW
N OSD + 1 additional scale out daemon + RGW

Arbitrary co-location of any daemon with any other daemon produces a combinatorial explosion of testing possibilities. The customer is invited to share what particular combination they are interested in for our review.
Comment 12 Sebastian Wagner 2021-10-13 15:31:56 UTC 
This is somewhat of a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894560 and is already implemented.

MGR: implemented but not supported
MON: not supported
RGW: supported
MDS: supported
Comment 16 Rahul Lepakshi 2021-12-17 07:25:19 UTC 
Based on sanity runs from CI at 5.1 and previous releases too, we already have support for colocation of different daemons.
Moving BZ to verified
Comment 18 Sebastian Wagner 2022-01-27 09:11:21 UTC 
upstreeam doc pr https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/44801
Comment 26 errata-xmlrpc 2022-04-04 10:19:51 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (Moderate: Red Hat Ceph Storage 5.1 Security, Enhancement, and Bug Fix update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2022:1174
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.