How silly of me!!!

I 've just noticed that the file isn't writable by the apache!


I 'll be back with the logs...


G.


I 'd be more than happy to provide to you all the info but for some
unknown reason my radosgw.log is empty.

This is the part that I have in ceph.conf

[client.radosgw.gateway]
host = xxx
keyring = /etc/ceph/keyring.radosgw.gateway
rgw socket path = /tmp/radosgw.sock
rgw dns name = xxx.example.com
rgw enable usage log = true
rgw usage log tick interval = 30
rgw usage log flush threshold = 1024
rgw usage max shards = 32
rgw usage max user shards = 1
log file = /var/log/ceph/radosgw.log
debug ms = 1
debug rgw = 20



but no matter what I put in there the log is empty....

$ pwd
/var/log/ceph
$ ls -l radosgw.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Nov 30 03:01 radosgw.log


I have already started  another thread with title "Empty Rados log"
here in ceph-users list since December 4th but haven't heard from
anyone yet...

If I solve this I will be able to provide you with all the data.


Regards,


George


Ok, I've been digging a bit more. I don't have full radosgw logs for
the issue, so if you could provide it (debug rgw = 20), it might help.
However, as it is now, I think the issue is with the way the client
library is signing the requests. Instead of using the undecoded
uploadId, it uses the encoded version for the signature, which doesn't
sign correctly. The same would have happened if it would have run
against amazon S3 (just tested it).
The two solutions that I see are to fix the client library, and/or to modify the character to one that does not require escaping. Sadly the
dash character that you were using cannot be used safely in that
context. Maybe tilde ('~') would could work.

Yehuda

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Georgios Dimitrakakis
<gior...@acmac.uoc.gr> wrote:
Dear Yehuda,

I have installed the patched version as you can see:

$ radosgw --version
ceph version 0.80.7-1-gbd43759 (bd43759f6e76fa827e2534fa4e61547779ee10a5)

$ ceph --version
ceph version 0.80.7-1-gbd43759 (bd43759f6e76fa827e2534fa4e61547779ee10a5)

$ sudo yum info ceph-radosgw
Installed Packages
Name        : ceph-radosgw
Arch        : x86_64
Version     : 0.80.7
Release     : 1.gbd43759.el6
Size        : 3.8 M
Repo        : installed
From repo   : ceph-source
Summary     : Rados REST gateway
URL         : http://ceph.com/
License     : GPL-2.0
Description : radosgw is an S3 HTTP REST gateway for the RADOS object store.
It is
: implemented as a FastCGI module using libfcgi, and can be used
in
            : conjunction with any FastCGI capable web server.


Unfortunately the problem on the multipart upload with aws-sdk still remains
the same!


Here is a part of the apache log:


"PUT

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?partNumber=3&uploadId=2%2F9rEUmdFcuW66VJfeH3_jbqqUz0jKvrO
HTTP/1.1" 403 78 "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"

"PUT

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?partNumber=1&uploadId=2%2F9rEUmdFcuW66VJfeH3_jbqqUz0jKvrO
HTTP/1.1" 403 78 "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"

"PUT

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?partNumber=2&uploadId=2%2F9rEUmdFcuW66VJfeH3_jbqqUz0jKvrO
HTTP/1.1" 403 78 "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"



Directly modification of the binary so that the "2%2F" be changed to "2-"
results in success and here is the log:


"PUT

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?partNumber=1&uploadId=2-R6bxv4TM2Brxn-w9aHOcbb8OSJ3-Vh2
HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"

"PUT

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?partNumber=2&uploadId=2-R6bxv4TM2Brxn-w9aHOcbb8OSJ3-Vh2
HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"

"PUT

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?partNumber=4&uploadId=2-R6bxv4TM2Brxn-w9aHOcbb8OSJ3-Vh2
HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"

"POST

/clients-space/test/iip7.dmg?uploadId=2-R6bxv4TM2Brxn-w9aHOcbb8OSJ3-Vh2
HTTP/1.1" 200 302 "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.1.0 darwin/v0.10.33"




Can you think of something else??


Best regards,


George





OK! I will give it some time and will try again later!

Thanks a lot for your help!

Warmest regards,

George


The branch I pushed earlier was based off recent development branch. I
just pushed one based off firefly (wip-10271-firefly). It will
probably take a bit to build.

Yehuda

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Georgios Dimitrakakis
<gior...@acmac.uoc.gr> wrote:

Hi again!

I have installed and enabled the development branch repositories as
described here:



http://ceph.com/docs/master/install/get-packages/#add-ceph-development

and when I try to update the ceph-radosgw package I get the following:

Installed Packages
Name        : ceph-radosgw
Arch        : x86_64
Version     : 0.80.7
Release     : 0.el6
Size        : 3.8 M
Repo        : installed
From repo   : Ceph
Summary     : Rados REST gateway
URL         : http://ceph.com/
License     : GPL-2.0
Description : radosgw is an S3 HTTP REST gateway for the RADOS object
store.
It is
: implemented as a FastCGI module using libfcgi, and can be
used
in
            : conjunction with any FastCGI capable web server.

Available Packages
Name        : ceph-radosgw
Arch        : x86_64
Epoch       : 1
Version     : 0.80.5
Release     : 9.el6
Size        : 1.3 M
Repo        : epel
Summary     : Rados REST gateway
URL         : http://ceph.com/
License     : GPL-2.0
Description : radosgw is an S3 HTTP REST gateway for the RADOS object
store.
It is
: implemented as a FastCGI module using libfcgi, and can be
used
in
            : conjunction with any FastCGI capable web server.



Is this normal???

I am concerned because the installed version is 0.80.7 and the available
update package is 0.80.5

Have I missed something?

Regards,

George



Pushed a fix to wip-10271. Haven't tested it though, let me know if
you try it.

Thanks,
Yehuda

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yeh...@redhat.com>
wrote:


I don't think it has been fixed recently. I'm looking at it now, and
not sure why it hasn't triggered before in other areas.

Yehuda

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Georgios Dimitrakakis
<gior...@acmac.uoc.gr> wrote:


This issue seems very similar to these:

http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8202
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8702


Would it make any difference if I try to build CEPH from sources?

I mean is someone aware of it been fixed on any of the recent commits
and
probably hasn't passed yet to the repositories?

Regards,

George





On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:47:59 +0200, Georgios Dimitrakakis wrote:



I 've just created issues #10271

Best,

George

On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:30:45 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh wrote:



It looks like a bug. Can you open an issue on tracker.ceph.com,
describing what you see?

Thanks,
Yehuda

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Georgios Dimitrakakis
<gior...@acmac.uoc.gr> wrote:



It would be nice to see where and how "uploadId"

is being calculated...


Thanks,


George



For example if I try to perform the same multipart upload at an
older
version ceph version 0.72.2
(a913ded2ff138aefb8cb84d347d72164099cfd60)


I can see the upload ID in the apache log as:

"PUT






/test/XXXX.dat?partNumber=25&uploadId=I3yihBFZmHx9CCqtcDjr8d-RhgfX8NW
HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.0.29 linux/v0.10.33"

but when I try the same at ceph version 0.80.7
(6c0127fcb58008793d3c8b62d925bc91963672a3)

I get the following:

"PUT








/test/XXXX.dat?partNumber=12&uploadId=2%2Ff9UgnHhdK0VCnMlpT-XA8ttia1HjK36
HTTP/1.1" 403 78 "-" "aws-sdk-nodejs/2.0.29 linux/v0.10.33"


and my guess is that the "%2F" at the latter is the one that is
causing the problem and hence the 403 error.



What do you think???


Best,

George



Hi all!

I am using AWS SDK JS v.2.0.29 to perform a multipart upload
into
Radosgw with ceph version 0.80.7
(6c0127fcb58008793d3c8b62d925bc91963672a3) and I am getting a
403
error.


I believe that the id which is send to all requests and has been urlencoded by the aws-sdk-js doesn't match with the one in rados
because it's not urlencoded.

Is that the case? Can you confirm it?

Is there something I can do?


Regards,

George

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





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




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




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






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


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

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

Reply via email to