who is using radosgw with civetweb?

who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Sage Weil]

Hey,

We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web 
server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current 
apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means 
both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the 
downstream Red Hat product will officially support.

How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb 
server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What 
version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most 
fixes).

Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly) 
simplify deployment.

Thanks!
sage

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Robert LeBlanc]

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.

Thanks,
Robert LeBlanc

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> fixes).
>
> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
> simplify deployment.
>
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Sage Weil]

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


> 
> Thanks,
> Robert LeBlanc
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
> >
> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> > fixes).
> >
> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
> > simplify deployment.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > sage
> > _______________________________________________
> > ceph-users mailing list
> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Robert LeBlanc]

Cool, I'll see if we have some cycles to look at it.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert LeBlanc
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
>> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
>> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
>> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
>> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>> >
>> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
>> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
>> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
>> > fixes).
>> >
>> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
>> > simplify deployment.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > sage
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Tom Deneau]

Sage Weil <sweil <at> 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.

-- Tom

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Mark Kirkwood]

On 26/02/15 11:50, Tom Deneau wrote:
> Sage Weil <sweil <at> 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

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Michael Kuriger]

I¹d also like to set this up.  I¹m not sure where to begin.  When you say
enabled by default, where is it enabled?

Many thanks,
Mike


On 2/25/15, 1:49 PM, "Sage Weil" <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>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
>
>
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robert LeBlanc
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw
>>web
>> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
>> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here
>>means
>> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and
>>what the
>> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>> >
>> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
>> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
>> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported
>>most
>> > fixes).
>> >
>> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to
>>(vastly)
>> > simplify deployment.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > sage
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
>> > 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ceph.com_listin
>>fo.cgi_ceph-2Dusers-2Dceph.com&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOS
>>ncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w
>>81RjI2K1ZU&s=VsyJ8UHWG0ApL86WXaeD5eOV5SRA7VmGeSkKGws3qMI&e=
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>> More majordomo info at
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__vger.kernel.org_major
>>domo-2Dinfo.html&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOSncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r
>>=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w81RjI2K1ZU&s=i
>>RNo1K7oJZ-14R-LWuNvEI0WoOr5UuaDkm3IQx77VIo&e=
>> 
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>ceph-users mailing list
>ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ceph.com_listinf
>o.cgi_ceph-2Dusers-2Dceph.com&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOSnc
>m6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w81R
>jI2K1ZU&s=VsyJ8UHWG0ApL86WXaeD5eOV5SRA7VmGeSkKGws3qMI&e= 

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 4333 bytes --]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Michael Kuriger wrote:
> I¹d also like to set this up.  I¹m not sure where to begin.  When you say
> enabled by default, where is it enabled?

The civetweb frontend is built into the radosgw process, so for the most 
part you just have to get radosgw started and configured.  It isn't well 
documented yet, but basically just skip everything that has anythig to do 
with fastcgi or apache.  For example, if you follow the docs, you can jump 
straight to here:

	http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/install/install-ceph-gateway/#id5

(or maybe set up the wildcard DNS if you want to get fancy).

If you're on firefly, you also need to add the line below to ceph.conf to 
enable civetweb; for giant and hammer radosgw will listen on port 7480 by 
default.

sage


> 
> Many thanks,
> Mike
> 
> 
> On 2/25/15, 1:49 PM, "Sage Weil" <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> >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
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert LeBlanc
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> > Hey,
> >> >
> >> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw
> >>web
> >> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> >> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here
> >>means
> >> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and
> >>what the
> >> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
> >> >
> >> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> >> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> >> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported
> >>most
> >> > fixes).
> >> >
> >> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to
> >>(vastly)
> >> > simplify deployment.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > sage
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > ceph-users mailing list
> >> > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >> > 
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ceph.com_listin
> >>fo.cgi_ceph-2Dusers-2Dceph.com&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOS
> >>ncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w
> >>81RjI2K1ZU&s=VsyJ8UHWG0ApL86WXaeD5eOV5SRA7VmGeSkKGws3qMI&e=
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> >> More majordomo info at
> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__vger.kernel.org_major
> >>domo-2Dinfo.html&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOSncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r
> >>=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w81RjI2K1ZU&s=i
> >>RNo1K7oJZ-14R-LWuNvEI0WoOr5UuaDkm3IQx77VIo&e=
> >> 
> >> 
> >_______________________________________________
> >ceph-users mailing list
> >ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ceph.com_listinf
> >o.cgi_ceph-2Dusers-2Dceph.com&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOSnc
> >m6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w81R
> >jI2K1ZU&s=VsyJ8UHWG0ApL86WXaeD5eOV5SRA7VmGeSkKGws3qMI&e= 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Michael Kuriger]

Thanks Sage for the quick reply!

-=Mike


On 2/26/15, 8:05 AM, "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Michael Kuriger wrote:
>> I¹d also like to set this up.  I¹m not sure where to begin.  When you
>>say
>> enabled by default, where is it enabled?
>
>The civetweb frontend is built into the radosgw process, so for the most
>part you just have to get radosgw started and configured.  It isn't well
>documented yet, but basically just skip everything that has anythig to do
>with fastcgi or apache.  For example, if you follow the docs, you can
>jump 
>straight to here:
>
>	https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.ceph.com_docs_ma
>ster_install_install-2Dceph-2Dgateway_-23id5&d=AwIDAw&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-B
>BSI8p1AamzLOSncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=zHhqYz7SSnUgByi3RhC_G
>O0wnyC-Tu-F34CbplxqJuE&s=ir3IkFo7P_iloq8saI65giD_fkZy4CCefyRWHQtaIes&e=
>
>(or maybe set up the wildcard DNS if you want to get fancy).
>
>If you're on firefly, you also need to add the line below to ceph.conf to
>enable civetweb; for giant and hammer radosgw will listen on port 7480 by
>default.
>
>sage
>
>
>> 
>> Many thanks,
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/25/15, 1:49 PM, "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >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
>> >
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Robert LeBlanc
>> >> 
>> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hey,
>> >> >
>> >> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone
>>rgw
>> >>web
>> >> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the
>>current
>> >> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here
>> >>means
>> >> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and
>> >>what the
>> >> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>> >> >
>> >> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded
>>civetweb
>> >> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
>> >> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported
>> >>most
>> >> > fixes).
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to
>> >>(vastly)
>> >> > simplify deployment.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >> > sage
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > ceph-users mailing list
>> >> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> > 
>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ceph.com_list
>>>>in
>> 
>>>>fo.cgi_ceph-2Dusers-2Dceph.com&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzL
>>>>OS
>> 
>>>>ncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb
>>>>9w
>> >>81RjI2K1ZU&s=VsyJ8UHWG0ApL86WXaeD5eOV5SRA7VmGeSkKGws3qMI&e=
>> >> --
>> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>>ceph-devel" in
>> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> >> More majordomo info at
>> 
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__vger.kernel.org_maj
>>>>or
>> 
>>>>domo-2Dinfo.html&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOSncm6Vfn0C_UQ
>>>>&r
>> 
>>>>=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w81RjI2K1ZU&s
>>>>=i
>> >>RNo1K7oJZ-14R-LWuNvEI0WoOr5UuaDkm3IQx77VIo&e=
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >ceph-users mailing list
>> >ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ceph.com_listi
>>>nf
>> 
>>>o.cgi_ceph-2Dusers-2Dceph.com&d=AwICAg&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOS
>>>nc
>> 
>>>m6Vfn0C_UQ&r=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=kDLPSKEyNK6uMLfvU8U7GTva3RMufAb9w8
>>>1R
>> >jI2K1ZU&s=VsyJ8UHWG0ApL86WXaeD5eOV5SRA7VmGeSkKGws3qMI&e=
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__vger.kernel.org_major
>>domo-2Dinfo.html&d=AwIDAw&c=lXkdEK1PC7UK9oKA-BBSI8p1AamzLOSncm6Vfn0C_UQ&r
>>=CSYA9OS6Qd7fQySI2LDvlQ&m=zHhqYz7SSnUgByi3RhC_GO0wnyC-Tu-F34CbplxqJuE&s=w
>>K6iPf6pMHg8FnOgdq4XuuXYeIVz9FEIrNtGI15s6YA&e=
>> 
>> 

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Robert LeBlanc]

Thanks, we were able to get it up and running very quickly. If it
performs well, I don't see any reason to use Apache+fast_cgi. I don't
have any problems just focusing on civetweb.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert LeBlanc
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
>> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
>> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
>> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
>> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>> >
>> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
>> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
>> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
>> > fixes).
>> >
>> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
>> > simplify deployment.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > sage
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>

RE: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Deneau, Tom]

Robert --

We are still having trouble with this.

Can you share your [client.radosgw.gateway] section of ceph.conf and
were there any other special things to be aware of?

-- Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Robert LeBlanc
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
To: Sage Weil
Cc: Ceph-User; ceph-devel
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

Thanks, we were able to get it up and running very quickly. If it performs well, I don't see any reason to use Apache+fast_cgi. I don't have any problems just focusing on civetweb.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert LeBlanc
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hey,
>> >
>> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone 
>> > rgw web
>> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the 
>> > current apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  
>> > "Supported" here means both the primary platform the upstream 
>> > development focuses on and what the downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>> >
>> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded 
>> > civetweb server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  
>> > What
>> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported 
>> > most fixes).
>> >
>> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to 
>> > (vastly) simplify deployment.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > sage
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ceph-users mailing list
>> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" 
>> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo 
>> info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Robert LeBlanc]

[client.radosgw.gateway]
host = radosgw1
keyring = /etc/ceph/ceph.client.radosgw.keyring
rgw socket path = /var/run/ceph/ceph.radosgw.gateway.fastcgi.sock
log file = /var/log/radosgw/client.radosgw.gateway.log
rgw print continue = false
rgw enable ops log = false
rgw ops log rados = false
rgw ops log data backlog = 4096
rgw frontends = civetweb port=7480

This is firefly on CentOS 6 connecting to a giant cluster.
/etc/init.d/ceph-radosgw start

Just make sure the user defined in /etc/init.d/ceph-radosgw can
read/write to the files listed in the section (for us it was the
apache user).

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Deneau, Tom <tom.deneau-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Robert --
>
> We are still having trouble with this.
>
> Can you share your [client.radosgw.gateway] section of ceph.conf and
> were there any other special things to be aware of?
>
> -- Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-devel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org [mailto:ceph-devel-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Robert LeBlanc
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
> To: Sage Weil
> Cc: Ceph-User; ceph-devel
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?
>
> Thanks, we were able to get it up and running very quickly. If it performs well, I don't see any reason to use Apache+fast_cgi. I don't have any problems just focusing on civetweb.
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robert LeBlanc
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> > Hey,
>>> >
>>> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone
>>> > rgw web
>>> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the
>>> > current apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.
>>> > "Supported" here means both the primary platform the upstream
>>> > development focuses on and what the downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>>> >
>>> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded
>>> > civetweb server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?
>>> > What
>>> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported
>>> > most fixes).
>>> >
>>> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to
>>> > (vastly) simplify deployment.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> > sage
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ceph-users mailing list
>>> > ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
>>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"
>>> in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo
>>> info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Blair Bethwaite]

It'd be nice to see a standard/recommended LB and HA approach for RGW
with supporting documentation too.

On 26 February 2015 at 06:31, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> fixes).
>
> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
> simplify deployment.
>
> Thanks!
> sage
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



-- 
Cheers,
~Blairo

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Wido den Hollander]

On 25-02-15 20:31, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> fixes).
>
> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
> simplify deployment.
>

It seems like Civetweb listens on 0.0.0.0 by default and that doesn't 
seem safe to me.

In most deployments you'll put Apache, Nginx or Varnish in front of RGW 
to do the proper HTTP handling.

I'd say that Civetweb should listen on 127.0.0.1:7480/[::1]:7480 by default.

And make sure it listens on IPv6 by default :-)

Wido

> Thanks!
> sage
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Sage Weil]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 25-02-15 20:31, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
> > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> > downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
> > 
> > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> > server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> > fixes).
> > 
> > Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
> > simplify deployment.
> > 
> 
> It seems like Civetweb listens on 0.0.0.0 by default and that doesn't seem
> safe to me.

Can you clarify?  Is that because people may inadvertantly run this on a 
public host and not realize that the host is answering requests?

If we move to a world where this is the default/preferred route, this 
seems like a good thing.. if they don't want to respond on an address they 
can specify which IP to bind to?

> In most deployments you'll put Apache, Nginx or Varnish in front of RGW to do
> the proper HTTP handling.
> 
> I'd say that Civetweb should listen on 127.0.0.1:7480/[::1]:7480 by default.
> 
> And make sure it listens on IPv6 by default :-)

Yeah, +1 on IPv6:)

sage


> 
> Wido
> 
> > Thanks!
> > sage
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Wido den Hollander]

> Op 26 feb. 2015 om 18:22 heeft Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>> On 25-02-15 20:31, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>> 
>>> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
>>> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
>>> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
>>> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
>>> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>>> 
>>> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
>>> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
>>> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
>>> fixes).
>>> 
>>> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
>>> simplify deployment.
>> 
>> It seems like Civetweb listens on 0.0.0.0 by default and that doesn't seem
>> safe to me.
> 
> Can you clarify?  Is that because people may inadvertantly run this on a 
> public host and not realize that the host is answering requests?
> 

Yes, mainly. I think we should encourage users to run Apache, Nginx or Varnish as a proxy/filter in front.

I'd just suggest to bind on localhost by default and let the user choose otherwise.

> If we move to a world where this is the default/preferred route, this 
> seems like a good thing.. if they don't want to respond on an address they 
> can specify which IP to bind to?
> 

Most services listen on localhost unless specified otherwise.

>> In most deployments you'll put Apache, Nginx or Varnish in front of RGW to do
>> the proper HTTP handling.
>> 
>> I'd say that Civetweb should listen on 127.0.0.1:7480/[::1]:7480 by default.
>> 
>> And make sure it listens on IPv6 by default :-)
> 
> Yeah, +1 on IPv6:)
> 
> sage
> 
> 
>> 
>> Wido
>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> sage
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> 
>> 

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Robert LeBlanc]

+1 for proxy. Keep the civetweb lean and mean and if people need
"extras" let the proxy handle this. Proxies are easy to set-up and a
simple example could be included in the documentation.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido-fspyXLx8qC4@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Op 26 feb. 2015 om 18:22 heeft Sage Weil <sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>>> On 25-02-15 20:31, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
>>>> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
>>>> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
>>>> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
>>>> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>>>>
>>>> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
>>>> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
>>>> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
>>>> fixes).
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
>>>> simplify deployment.
>>>
>>> It seems like Civetweb listens on 0.0.0.0 by default and that doesn't seem
>>> safe to me.
>>
>> Can you clarify?  Is that because people may inadvertantly run this on a
>> public host and not realize that the host is answering requests?
>>
>
> Yes, mainly. I think we should encourage users to run Apache, Nginx or Varnish as a proxy/filter in front.
>
> I'd just suggest to bind on localhost by default and let the user choose otherwise.
>
>> If we move to a world where this is the default/preferred route, this
>> seems like a good thing.. if they don't want to respond on an address they
>> can specify which IP to bind to?
>>
>
> Most services listen on localhost unless specified otherwise.
>
>>> In most deployments you'll put Apache, Nginx or Varnish in front of RGW to do
>>> the proper HTTP handling.
>>>
>>> I'd say that Civetweb should listen on 127.0.0.1:7480/[::1]:7480 by default.
>>>
>>> And make sure it listens on IPv6 by default :-)
>>
>> Yeah, +1 on IPv6:)
>>
>> sage
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Wido
>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> sage
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Martin Millnert]

Hi devs,

it seems the below fell between chairs or similar:

On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 19:43 +0100, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> >> It seems like Civetweb listens on 0.0.0.0 by default and that doesn't seem
> >> safe to me.
> I'd just suggest to bind on localhost by default and let the user choose otherwise.

I +1 that it should default to localhost.

The civetweb-way to configure this is documented at section
"listening_ports" in
https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb/blob/master/docs/UserManual.md

In ceph radosgw terms it'd be akin to:
  rgw frontends = civetweb port=127.0.0.1:7488

As a side-note, I notice the config parser is
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/rgw/rgw_main.cc#L1192 , 
the value of key "port" is parsed into an int.

Luckily, the parser ignores errors and throws $random data into the
process as-is. When setting e.g:
  rgw frontends = civetweb port=[::]:7488

"radosgw -d" throws
error parsing int: [::]:7488: strict_strtoll: expected integer, got:
'[::]:7488' 

followed by:

2015-11-02 17:51:00.287529 7f2e671db880  0 framework: civetweb
2015-11-02 17:51:00.287536 7f2e671db880  0 framework conf key: port,
val: [::]:7488
2015-11-02 17:51:00.287555 7f2e671db880  0 starting handler: civetweb

Input validation/schmalidation :-)

-- To get back to the original question, it is a simple fix at
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/common/config_opts.h#L1134
to change the default to "fastcgi, civetweb port=127.0.0.1:7480".

The tricky thing is operators relying on the default being world
accessible of course... Theoretically, an upgrade script could ...
explicitly add the running config before upgrade, to the config file or
similar, or at the very least warn.

Minimum the documentation at
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/config-ref/ could be blessed
with an entry on 'rgw frontends', including notes on how to configure it
for loopback-binding access only.

Best,
Martin

Re: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Nathan Cutler]

On 11/02/2015 06:01 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Minimum the documentation at
> http://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/config-ref/ could be blessed
> with an entry on 'rgw frontends', including notes on how to configure it
> for loopback-binding access only.

Agreed: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13670

-- 
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Radoslaw Zarzynski]

Sage Weil <sweil <at> redhat.com> writes:

> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly) 
> simplify deployment.

What about the memory footprint? In some cases the civetweb frontend
performs an additional buffering to properly calculate the size of a content
and to attach the "Content-Length" HTTP header. Please take a look on
RGWMongoose::write_data() and RGWMongoose::complete_request() methods. The
problem might be best visible on HUGE container listing.

Regards,
Radoslaw Zarzynski

AW: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Axel Dunkel]

Sage,

we use apache as a filter for security and additional functionality
reasons. I do like the idea, but we'd need some kind of interface to
filter/modify/process requests.

Best regards
Axel Dunkel

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] Im Auftrag von Sage Weil
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2015 20:32
An: ceph-users@ceph.com; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

Hey,

We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
downstream Red Hat product will officially support.

How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
fixes).

Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
simplify deployment.

Thanks!
sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: AW: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Sage Weil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2230 bytes --]

Hi Axel,

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Axel Dunkel wrote:
> Sage,
> 
> we use apache as a filter for security and additional functionality
> reasons. I do like the idea, but we'd need some kind of interface to
> filter/modify/process requests.

Civetweb has some basic functionality here:

	https://github.com/sunsetbrew/civetweb/blob/master/README.md#overview

Notably, "URL rewrite, file blacklist, IP-based ACL" and "Download speed 
limit based on client subnet or URI pattern" fall into the category of 
stuff I'd expect people to be doing with Apache.  Does this cover what 
you're after, or can you be more specific about what you need to do?

Also, for cases where we don't natively do something, would running 
something like nginx or apache in a proxying mode do the trick?

sage


> 
> Best regards
> Axel Dunkel
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
> [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org] Im Auftrag von Sage Weil
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Februar 2015 20:32
> An: ceph-users@ceph.com; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Betreff: who is using radosgw with civetweb?
> 
> Hey,
> 
> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means
> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
> 
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> fixes).
> 
> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly)
> simplify deployment.
> 
> Thanks!
> sage
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[GuangYang]

Hi Sage,
Is there any timeline around the switch? So that we can plan ahead for the testing.

We are running apache + mod-fastcgi in production at scale (540 OSDs, 9 RGW hosts) and it looks good so far. Although at the beginning we came across a problem with large volume of 500 error, which tracked to that mod-fastcgi is using "select" which limits to 1024 FDs. We used "poll" to replace "select" and the problem was solved.

Thanks,
Guang


----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:31:54 -0800
> From: sweil-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
> To: ceph-users-Qp0mS5GaXlQ@public.gmane.org; ceph-devel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> Subject: [ceph-users] who is using radosgw with civetweb?
>
> Hey,
>
> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current
> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach. "Supported" here means
> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> server instead of apache? In production? At what scale? What
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> fixes).
>
> Have you seen any problems? Any other feedback? The hope is to (vastly)
> simplify deployment.
>
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 		 	   		  

Re: who is using radosgw with civetweb?

[Derek Yarnell]

On 2/25/15 2:31 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web 
> server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current 
> apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach.  "Supported" here means 
> both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what the 
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
> 
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb 
> server instead of apache?  In production?  At what scale?  What 
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most 
> fixes).
> 
> Have you seen any problems?  Any other feedback?  The hope is to (vastly) 
> simplify deployment.

Hi,

We have been using civetweb proxied by Apache on RHEL7 on both our RGW
clusters and have been very happy with performance and setup. This has
been our default since we upgraded to Hammer.

Only thing we had to make sure that on our ProxyPass we were specifying
nocanon the proxy pass would mangle http encoding.

Reason we use Apache on the front end is so we can collocate a Django
web front end application for the object store to get around the
necessary for CORS (we designed this before RGW was CORS aware anyway).

Thanks,
derek

-- 
Derek T. Yarnell
University of Maryland
Institute for Advanced Computer Studies