install cephadm on all nodes #3552
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
katarimanojk
force-pushed
the
fix_missing_packages_in_cephnodes
branch
from
2241460 to
0c9047f
Compare
| ansible.builtin.include_role: | ||
| name: cifmw_cephadm | ||
| tasks_from: install_cephadm | ||
| when: cifmw_cephadm_install_on_all_nodes | default(false) | bool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cifmw_cephadm_install_on_all_nodes: true var will be used only by the adoption jobs which uses external ceph.
| ansible.builtin.include_role: | ||
| name: cifmw_cephadm | ||
| tasks_from: install_cephadm | ||
| when: cifmw_cephadm_install_on_all_nodes | default(false) | bool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see that the purpose here is to install the cephadm package in all the HCI nodes that are part of the ceph cluster. By doing this, when the migration happens (e.g. mons are moved from controller-0 to compute-0 and so forth) you have and available cephadm command to interact with the cluster.
Also I see you can't reuse pre.yaml because it is called in the bootstrap part that is run against the first mon.
I assume this task preserves backward compatibility due to default(false), so we can explicitly add it in that context.
I'd like to have @fultonj's opinion on this, because I'm not entirely sure if there's a better way to perform the same task in a different part of the process.
The other question is: should this be part of post_tasks or should be handled in it's own playbook (I see we have many playbooks here)?
It might result confusing having it within the "Distribute SSH keypairs ...", so I'm wondering if we should do things differently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For example we could have a small "Prerequisites" playbook that does the cephadm install in the short term, and review what we do in general to have some common section that applies to all the involved nodes.
Just an idea, but I'd like to hear your opinions first.
2 participants
No description provided.