Hi, Because we had some issues with a bad rebalance in production (we didn't loose any data, but some drives went full...), I attempted to implement the Swift mitigation to prevent disk full scenarios. I found that what upstream recommends [1] is a script that's written in Python 2, and that wouldn't work at all: it's not only very old, it's also a very partial implementation. So I wrote this: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/swift/+/907523 But then, I was told (thanks for the review!) that I shouldn't be using oslo.config and/or oslo.log, as other parts of Swift don't do that. I do understand that the rest of Swift is like this, and therefore, the review comment is probably right. However... Back in the days, I would have understood why things would have been written that way: the Oslo libs were young, and not available everywhere, and it was kind of a good idea not to use them. But now, fast forward in 2024, I found that Swift behaving differently from the rest of OpenStack is more a problem than a feature. It's also very frustrating to use the old way with the config_parser, which can't auto-generate the config file and so on. So I am wondering: - is it still the case, that I shouldn't use oslo.config / oslo.log when adding a patch in Swift? - can we revisit this, and convert swift to oslo.config generated config files, and PBR shell-script entry points instead of binary simply dropped into the toplevel bin folder? Can we make swift smarter and behave like the rest of OpenStack? :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) [1] https://docs.openstack.org/swift/latest/admin_guide.html#preventing-disk-ful...