Peter Sabaini

Think this could be the same as #356 which was fixed in #357 (but was still present in revision 862) For current releases I don't see mismatches between what `run...

~Ok it seems after trying a few more times I could repro after all, smells like we still are racing~ This actually appears to be a separate issue specific to...

Hi @pedrofragola ftr. the linked snapd patch turned out to be erroneous, we will need to come up with a new interface for snapd

I'm afraid that this is unsupported at the moment, although we plan to address this gap

Right, using a loop device would be a viaable alternative for a lab setup. Note that you need a recent-ish snapd for this, e.g. >2.60. For older snapd versions you...

FTR this is being handled in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/13352

Thanks Giuseppe for that report. This is likely an issue where we're not setting up the auto-crush rules for upgraded clusters

Currently the `removeNode()` function takes a `force` flag that changes the semantics of that function {force=false} 1. checks safety constraints of node removal (preserving at least 3 OSDs, ensures no...

Hi @Neirth , thanks for the suggestion. We currently do not expose a lot of configuration, however that could change in the future. A method for mass-setting config values sure...

Heya @gnuoy , thanks for bringing this up! Just to note what we discussed before: there is no expectation that scaling up should be done serially so this is indeed...