On Aug 13, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Caitlin Bestler
wrote:
> I'm not sure it's worth the compatibility hassles, but why would periodic
> "Progress" returns that could be translated into a client status bar be
> "useless"?
Sorry, poor choice of word I guess.
___
Greg Holt wrote:
> Followup note: Though briefly mentioned by John, I like to emphasize this
> also affects COPY (or PUT with X-Copy-From) requests,
> and #1 (upping the lb timeout) is really the only solution unless we go crazy
> and implement async requests with status checks.
> Well, another
Followup note: Though briefly mentioned by John, I like to emphasize this also
affects COPY (or PUT with X-Copy-From) requests, and #1 (upping the lb timeout)
is really the only solution unless we go crazy and implement async requests
with status checks. Well, another weird solution is to have S
This is great info, John. Thanks.
John
John Purrier
j...@openstack.com
(206) 930-0788
http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnpur
On 8/10/12 9:31 AM, "John Dickinson" wrote:
>In a standard swift deployment, the proxy server is running behind a load
>balancer and/or an SSL terminator. At SwiftStack,
Thanks for sharing.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
> In a standard swift deployment, the proxy server is running behind a load
> balancer and/or an SSL terminator. At SwiftStack, we discovered an issue
> that may arise from some config parameters in this layer, and we'
In a standard swift deployment, the proxy server is running behind a load
balancer and/or an SSL terminator. At SwiftStack, we discovered an issue that
may arise from some config parameters in this layer, and we'd like to share it
with other swift deployers.
Symptom:
Users updating metadata (i
6 matches
Mail list logo
