On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
> wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR: Does anyone care if we remove support for fastcgi in rgw?
>
> Please remove it as soon as possible. The old libfcgi project's code
&g
Have you opened a ceph tracker issue, so that we don't lose track of
the problem?
Thanks,
Yehuda
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, wrote:
> Hi Graham.
>
> We are on Kraken and have the same problem with "lifecycle". Various (other)
> tools like s3cmd or CyberDuck do show the applied "expiration"
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Bryan Stillwell
> wrote:
>> This has come up quite a few times before, but since I was only working with
>> RBD before I didn't pay too close attention to the conversation. I'm
>> looking
>>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> If using s3cmd to radosgw and using s3cmd's --disable-multipart option, is
> there any limit to the size of the object that can be stored thru radosgw?
>
rgw limits plain uploads to 5GB
> Also, is there a recommendation for multipart chunk
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Xavier Serrano
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are using ceph version 0.94.4, with radosgw offering S3 storage
>> to our users.
>>
>> Each user is assigned one bucket (and only one; max_buckets is set to 1).
>>
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:27 AM, 孙方臣 wrote:
> Hi, All,
>
> I'm setting up federated gateway. One is master zone, the other is slave
> zone. Radosgw-agent is running in slave zone. I have encountered some
> problems, can anybody help answering this:
>
> 1. When put a object to radosgw, there are t
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
> This development release includes a raft of changes and improvements for
> Jewel. Key additions include CephFS scrub/repair improvements, an AIX and
> Solaris port of librados, many librbd journaling additions and fixes,
> extended per-pool optio
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, seapasu...@uchicago.edu
wrote:
> It looks like the gateway is experiencing a similar race condition to what
> we reported before.
>
> The rados object has a size of 0 bytes but the bucket index shows the object
> listed and the object metadata shows a size of
> 71
uot;",
> "ns": "",
> "object":
> "2015\/01\/01\/PAKC\/NWS_NEXRAD_NXL2DP_PAKC_2015010111_20150101115959.tar",
> "instance": ""
> },
> "hea
2015010113_20150101135959.tar.2~wksHvto9gRgHUJbhm_TZPXJTZUPXLT2.1_1
> default.384153.1__multipart_2015/01/01/KABR/NWS_NEXRAD_NXL2DP_KABR_2015010113_20150101135959.tar.2~wksHvto9gRgHUJbhm_TZPXJTZUPXLT2.1
>
>
>
>
> On 1/15/16 12:05 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>>
>&g
y I am a bit confused. The successful list that I provided is from a
> different object of the same size to show that I could indeed get a list.
> Are you saying to copy the working object to the missing object? Sorry for
> the confusion.
>
>
> On 1/15/16 3:20 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-We
9.tar'
> .rgw.buckets/default.384153.1_2015/01/01/PAKC/NWS_NEXRAD_NXL2DP_PAKC_2015010111_20150101115959.tar
> mtime 2015-11-04 15:29:30.00, size 0
>
> Sorry again for the confusion.
>
>
>
> On 1/15/16 3:58 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I
"remote_addr": "",
> 17462372 "object_owner": "b05f707271774dbd89674a0736c9406e",
> 17462373 "user": "b05f707271774dbd89674a0736c9406e",
> 17462374 "operation": "PUT",
> 17462
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:43 AM, seapasu...@uchicago.edu
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/19/16 4:00 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:04 PM, seapasu...@uchicago.edu
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have looked all
? I mean
> ideally this should never be possible, right? Even with a complete object
> that is 0 bytes it should be downloaded as 0 bytes and have a different
> md5sum and not report as 7mb?
>
>
>
> On 1/20/16 1:30 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20,
> I'm working on getting the code they used and trying different timeouts in
> my multipart upload code. Right now I have not created any new 404 keys
> though :-(
>
>
> On 1/20/16 3:44 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>>
>> We'll need to confirm that this is th
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:02 PM, seapasu...@uchicago.edu
wrote:
> I haven't been able to reproduce the issue on my end but I do not fully
> understand how the bug exists or why it is happening. I was finally given
> the code they are using to upload the files::
>
> http://pastebin.com/N0j86NQJ
>
>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>> On 01/26/2016 08:29 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> we recently worked a bit on running a full static website just on
>>> radosgw (akin to
>>> http://docs.aws.amaz
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:18 PM, seapasu...@uchicago.edu
wrote:
> if you set a RGW user to have abucket quota of 0 buckets you can still
> create buckets. The only way I have found to prevent a user from being able
> to create buckets is to set the op_mask to read. 1.) it looks like
> bucket_polic
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:20 PM, seapasu...@uchicago.edu
wrote:
> So when I create a new user with the admin api. If the user already exists
> it just generates a new keypair for that user. Shouldn't the admin api
> report that the user already exists? I ask because I can end up with
> multiple ke
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:31 PM, John Hogenmiller wrote:
> I did end up switching to civetweb and I also found that rgw content length
> compat, which I set to true. I am still getting the 411 Length required
> issue.
>
> I have had more discussions with our testing team, and I am still trying to
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Jacek Jarosiewicz
wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> My setup is: ceph 0.94.5, ubuntu 14.04, tengine (patched nginx).
>
> I'm trying to migrate from our old file storage (MogileFS) to the new ceph
> radosgw. The problem is that the old storage had no access control - no
> author
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Krzysztof Księżyk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm experiencing problem with poor performance of RadosGW while operating on
> bucket with many object. That's known issue with LevelDB and can be
> partially resolved using shrading but I have one more idea. As I see in ceph
> o
try running:
$ radosgw-admin --name client.rgw.servergw001 metadata list user
Yehuda
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Andrea Annoè wrote:
> I don’t see any user create in RGW
>
>
>
> sudo radosgw-admin metadata list user
>
> [
>
> ]
>
>
>
>
>
> sudo radosgw-admin user create --uid="user1site1"
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
> Any idea what is going on here? I get these intermittently, especially with
> very large file.
>
> The client is doing RANGE requests on this >51 GB file, incrementally
> fetching later chunks.
>
> 2016-02-24 16:30:59.669561 7fd33b7fe700 1 =
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 08:36 PM, David Wang wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>> How the progress of NFS on RGW? Does it released on Infernalis? The
>> contents of NFS on RGW is
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/RGW_-_NFS
>>
>>
>
> The FSAL has
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Ritter Sławomir
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We have two CEPH clusters running on Dumpling 0.67.11 and some of our
> "multipart objects" are incompleted. It seems that some slow requests could
> cause corruption of related S3 objects. Moveover GETs for that objects are
> w
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Ritter Sławomir
wrote:
>> From: Robin H. Johnson [mailto:robb...@gentoo.org]
>> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:40 AM
>> To: Ritter Sławomir
>> Cc: ceph-us...@ceph.com; ceph-devel
>> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Problem: silently corrupted RadosGW objects caused
>> by
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Pavan Rallabhandi
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find this to be discussed here before, but couldn¹t find any solution
> hence the mail. In RGW, for a bucket holding objects in the range of ~
> millions, one can find it to take for ever to delete the bucket(via
> radosgw-admi
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Richard Chan
wrote:
> Hi Cephers,
>
> I upgraded to Jewel and noted the is massive radosgw multisite rework
> in the release notes.
>
> Can Jewel radosgw be configured to present existing Hammer buckets?
> On a test system, jewel didn't recognise my Hammer buckets
(sorry for resubmission, adding ceph-users)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Richard Chan
wrote:
> Hi Yehuda
>
> I created a test 3xVM setup with Hammer and one radosgw on the (separate)
> admin node; creating one user and buckets.
>
> I upgraded the VMs to jewel and created a new radosgw on one
I managed to reproduce the issue, and there seem to be multiple
problems. Specifically we have an issue when upgrading a default
cluster that hasn't had a zone (and region) explicitly configured
before. There is another bug that I found
(http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15597) that makes things even
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:07 AM Maxime Guyot wrote:
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> You assumed correctly, the "test" container (private) was created with the
> "openstack container create test", then I am using the S3 API to
> enable/disable object versioning on it.
> I use the following Python snippet to
501 - 533 of 533 matches
Mail list logo
