From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:10:33 +1300 Message-ID: <54EE5669.9090906@catalyst.net.nz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bertrand.catalyst.net.nz ([202.78.240.40]:43181 "EHLO mail.catalyst.net.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752769AbbBYXTD (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:19:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tom Deneau , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 26/02/15 11:50, Tom Deneau wrote: > Sage Weil redhat.com> writes: > >> >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> We tried to get radosgw working with Apache + mod_fastcgi, but due to >>> the changes in radosgw, Apache, mode_*cgi, etc and the documentation >>> lagging and not having a lot of time to devote to it, we abandoned it. >>> Where it the documentation for civetweb? If it is appliance like and >>> easy to set-up, we would like to try it to offer some feedback on your >>> question. >> >> In giant and hammer, it is enabled by default on port 7480. On firefly, >> you need to add the line >> >> rgw frontends = fastcgi, civetweb port=7480 >> >> to ceph.conf (you can of course adjust the port number if you like) and >> radosgw will run standalone w/ no apache or anything else. >> >> sage >> > > Like Robert, I have had trouble getting the gateway working with the Apache > methods. So civetweb is something we would like to try. > > I am running 0.92 built from sources using rpmbuild. (This is on arm64). > So I assume I do not need any rgw frontends line in ceph.conf. > > It would be good to document what steps from > http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/config/ are still required when > using civetweb. > +1. I was considering using civetweb whilst experimenting with radosgw - and didn't because I had no idea how to get it going. It is funny that I probably had it running anyway (0.92), but highlights the importance of having the docs up to date! Cheers Mark