Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

This project is now read‑only. Starting Monday, February 2, please use https://ibm-ceph.atlassian.net/ for all bug tracking management.

Bug 1925479

Summary:	Noticed service and process update delay on removal of OSD
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage	Reporter:	Sunil Kumar Nagaraju <sunnagar>
Component:	Cephadm	Assignee:	Juan Miguel Olmo <jolmomar>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Sunil Kumar Nagaraju <sunnagar>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:	Karen Norteman <knortema>
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	5.0	CC:	jolmomar, sewagner, tserlin
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	5.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	ceph-16.2.0-1.el8cp	Doc Type:	No Doc Update
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-08-30 08:28:17 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:

Comment 1 Juan Miguel Olmo 2021-04-06 16:54:17 UTC

Depending on the amount of data, deleting an OSD can be a slow operation. We do not have found a really slow behavior deleting osds but our environment probably does not have the same amount of data that QE is using.

Please retest, using the command to read the deletion status, and provide more information about load. Please attach the mgr log if you see the slow behavior

Comment 3 Juan Miguel Olmo 2021-04-08 09:32:33 UTC

Same delay using the --force parameter?

try:
# ceph orch ls --refresh

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2021-08-30 08:28:17 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 (Red Hat Ceph Storage 5.0 bug fix and enhancement), 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/RHBA-2021:3294