* apache/fcgi deprecation?
@ 2016-02-05 4:12 Nathan Cutler
2016-02-08 22:57 ` Ken Dreyer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Cutler @ 2016-02-05 4:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ceph Development
I was just browsing the RGW documentation and noticed that parts of it
are still apache/fcgi-oriented (with no mention of civetweb) even in master.
My impression was that civetweb is now recommended for RGW deployments
as it is faster. Is that true? And is there a plan to deprecate/drop
apache/fcgi support, or will it remain indefinitely?
Would it be a good idea to expunge apache/fcgi from the docs and point
folks to civetweb instead?
--
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-05 4:12 apache/fcgi deprecation? Nathan Cutler
@ 2016-02-08 22:57 ` Ken Dreyer
2016-02-08 23:07 ` Nathan Cutler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Dreyer @ 2016-02-08 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Cutler; +Cc: Ceph Development
Sure, please do it!
I think it's just a matter of no one having time to remove it.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> I was just browsing the RGW documentation and noticed that parts of it are
> still apache/fcgi-oriented (with no mention of civetweb) even in master.
>
> My impression was that civetweb is now recommended for RGW deployments as it
> is faster. Is that true? And is there a plan to deprecate/drop apache/fcgi
> support, or will it remain indefinitely?
>
> Would it be a good idea to expunge apache/fcgi from the docs and point folks
> to civetweb instead?
>
> --
> Nathan Cutler
> Software Engineer Distributed Storage
> SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
> Tel.: +420 284 084 037
> --
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-08 22:57 ` Ken Dreyer
@ 2016-02-08 23:07 ` Nathan Cutler
2016-02-09 0:30 ` Sage Weil
2016-02-09 4:09 ` Ken Dreyer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Cutler @ 2016-02-08 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken Dreyer; +Cc: Ceph Development
On 02/08/2016 11:57 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> Sure, please do it!
>
> I think it's just a matter of no one having time to remove it.
So we could remove the FastCGI dependency from the packaging, too?
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> I was just browsing the RGW documentation and noticed that parts of it are
>> still apache/fcgi-oriented (with no mention of civetweb) even in master.
>>
>> My impression was that civetweb is now recommended for RGW deployments as it
>> is faster. Is that true? And is there a plan to deprecate/drop apache/fcgi
>> support, or will it remain indefinitely?
>>
>> Would it be a good idea to expunge apache/fcgi from the docs and point folks
>> to civetweb instead?
>>
>> --
>> Nathan Cutler
>> Software Engineer Distributed Storage
>> SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
>> Tel.: +420 284 084 037
>> --
>> 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
--
Nathan Cutler
Software Engineer Distributed Storage
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
Tel.: +420 284 084 037
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-08 23:07 ` Nathan Cutler
@ 2016-02-09 0:30 ` Sage Weil
2016-02-09 1:16 ` Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
2016-02-09 2:40 ` Blair Bethwaite
2016-02-09 4:09 ` Ken Dreyer
1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Sage Weil @ 2016-02-09 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Cutler; +Cc: Ken Dreyer, Ceph Development
Matt, Yehuda-
What do you think? There are some valid use-cases for wanting apache (or
whatever) in front as it gives you access to a bunch of modules. On the
other hand, you can do the same with a proxy.
sage
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Nathan Cutler wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 11:57 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > Sure, please do it!
> >
> > I think it's just a matter of no one having time to remove it.
>
> So we could remove the FastCGI dependency from the packaging, too?
>
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > I was just browsing the RGW documentation and noticed that parts of it are
> > > still apache/fcgi-oriented (with no mention of civetweb) even in master.
> > >
> > > My impression was that civetweb is now recommended for RGW deployments as
> > > it
> > > is faster. Is that true? And is there a plan to deprecate/drop apache/fcgi
> > > support, or will it remain indefinitely?
> > >
> > > Would it be a good idea to expunge apache/fcgi from the docs and point
> > > folks
> > > to civetweb instead?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nathan Cutler
> > > Software Engineer Distributed Storage
> > > SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
> > > Tel.: +420 284 084 037
> > > --
> > > 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
>
>
> --
> Nathan Cutler
> Software Engineer Distributed Storage
> SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
> Tel.: +420 284 084 037
> --
> 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
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-09 0:30 ` Sage Weil
@ 2016-02-09 1:16 ` Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
2016-02-09 1:56 ` Matt Benjamin
2016-02-09 2:40 ` Blair Bethwaite
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub @ 2016-02-09 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Nathan Cutler, Ken Dreyer, Ceph Development
Right, apache can be used as a proxy. In any case, my understanding is
that it's not a dependency, but we'll still have the ability to
install it (mod-proxy-fcgi) if needed (correct me if I'm wrong here).
There aren't any current plans that I know of to remove the rgw fcgi
frontend.
Yehuda
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> Matt, Yehuda-
>
> What do you think? There are some valid use-cases for wanting apache (or
> whatever) in front as it gives you access to a bunch of modules. On the
> other hand, you can do the same with a proxy.
>
> sage
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Nathan Cutler wrote:
>
>> On 02/08/2016 11:57 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> > Sure, please do it!
>> >
>> > I think it's just a matter of no one having time to remove it.
>>
>> So we could remove the FastCGI dependency from the packaging, too?
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> > > I was just browsing the RGW documentation and noticed that parts of it are
>> > > still apache/fcgi-oriented (with no mention of civetweb) even in master.
>> > >
>> > > My impression was that civetweb is now recommended for RGW deployments as
>> > > it
>> > > is faster. Is that true? And is there a plan to deprecate/drop apache/fcgi
>> > > support, or will it remain indefinitely?
>> > >
>> > > Would it be a good idea to expunge apache/fcgi from the docs and point
>> > > folks
>> > > to civetweb instead?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Nathan Cutler
>> > > Software Engineer Distributed Storage
>> > > SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
>> > > Tel.: +420 284 084 037
>> > > --
>> > > 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nathan Cutler
>> Software Engineer Distributed Storage
>> SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
>> Tel.: +420 284 084 037
>> --
>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-09 1:16 ` Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
@ 2016-02-09 1:56 ` Matt Benjamin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Matt Benjamin @ 2016-02-09 1:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
Cc: Sage Weil, Nathan Cutler, Ken Dreyer, Ceph Development
Hi,
I think that is correct, at least in RHEL. As long as we continue to support the fcgi integration in rgw, this should work.
There really does seem to be a lot of application of various header, logging, and cache-control customization setups that we don't want to emulate in rgw itself. I'm interested in hearing feedback from folks about the acceptability/preference for or against proxy vs. embedding, esp. larger deployments.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <yehuda@redhat.com>
> To: "Sage Weil" <sweil@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Nathan Cutler" <ncutler@suse.cz>, "Ken Dreyer" <kdreyer@redhat.com>, "Ceph Development"
> <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 8:16:05 PM
> Subject: Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
>
> Right, apache can be used as a proxy. In any case, my understanding is
> that it's not a dependency, but we'll still have the ability to
> install it (mod-proxy-fcgi) if needed (correct me if I'm wrong here).
> There aren't any current plans that I know of to remove the rgw fcgi
> frontend.
>
> Yehuda
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Matt, Yehuda-
> >
> > What do you think? There are some valid use-cases for wanting apache (or
> > whatever) in front as it gives you access to a bunch of modules. On the
> > other hand, you can do the same with a proxy.
> >
> > sage
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Nathan Cutler wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/08/2016 11:57 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> >> > Sure, please do it!
> >> >
> >> > I think it's just a matter of no one having time to remove it.
> >>
> >> So we could remove the FastCGI dependency from the packaging, too?
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> > > I was just browsing the RGW documentation and noticed that parts of it
> >> > > are
> >> > > still apache/fcgi-oriented (with no mention of civetweb) even in
> >> > > master.
> >> > >
> >> > > My impression was that civetweb is now recommended for RGW deployments
> >> > > as
> >> > > it
> >> > > is faster. Is that true? And is there a plan to deprecate/drop
> >> > > apache/fcgi
> >> > > support, or will it remain indefinitely?
> >> > >
> >> > > Would it be a good idea to expunge apache/fcgi from the docs and point
> >> > > folks
> >> > > to civetweb instead?
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Nathan Cutler
> >> > > Software Engineer Distributed Storage
> >> > > SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
> >> > > Tel.: +420 284 084 037
> >> > > --
> >> > > 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
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nathan Cutler
> >> Software Engineer Distributed Storage
> >> SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.
> >> Tel.: +420 284 084 037
> >> --
> >> 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
> --
> 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
>
--
--
Matt Benjamin
Red Hat, Inc.
315 West Huron Street, Suite 140A
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103
http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/storage
tel. 734-707-0660
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-09 0:30 ` Sage Weil
2016-02-09 1:16 ` Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
@ 2016-02-09 2:40 ` Blair Bethwaite
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Blair Bethwaite @ 2016-02-09 2:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Nathan Cutler, Ken Dreyer, Ceph Development
On 9 February 2016 at 11:30, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> What do you think? There are some valid use-cases for wanting apache (or
> whatever) in front as it gives you access to a bunch of modules. On the
> other hand, you can do the same with a proxy.
I don't think it's valid to point people at the civetweb docs without
some clear info about how it is embedded in radosgw and how (if it's
even possible?) to change the embedded civetweb's config.
At Monash we recently implemented radosgw under Red Hat Ceph (i.e.,
Hammer .3-ish). We were quite surprised (and to be honest, a bit
disappointed) that there was apparently no documentation about
architecture or configuration for standing up a production grade
radosgw service with the current tech (civetweb) - understandable to
see upstream/community docs lacking, but had hoped the Red Hat
subscription might unlock some useful internal docs/configs to this
effect.
After some effort we now have a horizontally scalable radosgw behind
haproxy (SSL termination there) + keepalived with basic DNS
round-robin providing the initial request fan-out, and would be
willing to contribute some rudimentary info to the docs around this.
We're now trying to figure out how we can implement some basic
security controls with this setup (e.g., block brute-force
attempts)...
--
Cheers,
~Blairo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: apache/fcgi deprecation?
2016-02-08 23:07 ` Nathan Cutler
2016-02-09 0:30 ` Sage Weil
@ 2016-02-09 4:09 ` Ken Dreyer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Dreyer @ 2016-02-09 4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Cutler; +Cc: Ceph Development
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 11:57 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>>
>> Sure, please do it!
>>
>> I think it's just a matter of no one having time to remove it.
>
>
> So we could remove the FastCGI dependency from the packaging, too?
>
That would be nice, but currently RGW hard-codes a dependency on
fcgi-devel, and there's no "--without-fcgi" option to ./configure
- Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-09 4:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-05 4:12 apache/fcgi deprecation? Nathan Cutler
2016-02-08 22:57 ` Ken Dreyer
2016-02-08 23:07 ` Nathan Cutler
2016-02-09 0:30 ` Sage Weil
2016-02-09 1:16 ` Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
2016-02-09 1:56 ` Matt Benjamin
2016-02-09 2:40 ` Blair Bethwaite
2016-02-09 4:09 ` Ken Dreyer
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.