ah. ok. we were going to start looking into getting some metrics too, but hadn't yet. We're infernalis now, and going to jewel soon. Theres a huge difference between jewel and hammer. So maybe its better now... The whole single namespace for all tenants thing is supposed to be fixed in jewel too. which has bitten us on multiple occasions.
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Xav Paice [xavpa...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 12:39 PM To: Fox, Kevin M Cc: George Mihaiescu; OpenStack Operators Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Rados Gateway to Swift migration On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 19:29 +0000, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Did you try it with jewel? If not, what version? > >From Emperor up to Hammer, haven't upgraded since then. I see that there's a number of significant changes, some of the limitations we were finding to be a problem may be gone now. > Thanks, > Kevin > ________________________________________ > From: Xav Paice [xavpa...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 12:12 PM > To: George Mihaiescu > Cc: OpenStack Operators > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Rados Gateway to Swift migration > > On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 07:19 -0400, George Mihaiescu wrote: > > Hi Xav, > > > > We are trying to get usage metrics for radosgw as well for internal cost > > recovery. Can you please share how far you got in that process and what it > > was missing? > > > > To be honest, we didn't get very far and that's one of the reasons for > using Swift instead. There were limitations with permissions that we > found very difficult to get around, without having a data collection > user added to each and every project. > > > Thank you, > > George > > > > > On Oct 5, 2016, at 1:57 AM, Xav Paice <xavpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 15:42 +1100, Blair Bethwaite wrote: > > >> Nice! But I'm curious, why the need to migrate? > > > > > > Hmm. I want to be diplomatic since both are great for their thing. > > > > > > For us, the main reason was simply that we wanted replication of the > > > object storage between regions (we started the process before that was a > > > feature in RGW), but also being a public cloud we also wanted to be able > > > to bill customers for their usage, and we were finding that incredibly > > > difficult with Rados Gateway in comparison to Swift. > > > > > > That, and we found customers were using RGW as a backup, and that's on > > > the same storage back end as our Cinder and Glance - moving to a > > > different platform makes it separate. > > > > > > There's a few other features in Swift that aren't in RGW, and we have > > > customers asking for them, which really matters a lot to us. > > > > > > There's pros and cons for both, I don't regret us using RGW but it just > > > doesn't suit our needs right now. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OpenStack-operators mailing list > > > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
