----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francois Lafont" <flafdiv...@free.fr>
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Radosgw: upgrade Firefly to Hammer, impossible to 
> create bucket
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
> 
> > The 405 in this case usually means that rgw failed to translate the http
> > hostname header into
> > a bucket name. Do you have 'rgw dns name' set correctly?
> 
> Ah, I have found and indeed it concerned "rgw dns name" as also Karan
> thought. ;)
> But it's a little curious. Explanations:
> 
> My s3cmd client use these hostnames (which are well resolved with the IP
> address
> of the radosgw host):
> 
>     <bucket-name>.ostore.athome.priv
> 
> And in the configuration of my radosgw, I had:
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> [client.radosgw.gw1]
>   host            = ceph-radosgw1
>   rgw dns name    = ostore
>   ...
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> ie just the *short* name of the radosgw's fqdn (its fqdn is
> ostore.athome.priv).
> And with Firefly, it worked well, I never had problem with this
> configuration!
> But with Hammer, it doesn't work anymore (I don't know why). Now, with
> Hammer,
> I just notice that I have to put the fqdn in "rgw dns name" not the short
> name:
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> [client.radosgw.gw1]
>   host            = ceph-radosgw1
>   rgw dns name    = ostore.athome.priv
>   ...
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> And with this configuration, it works.
> 
> Is it normal? In fact, maybe my configuration with the short name (instead of
> the
> fqdn) was not valid and I just was lucky it work well so far. Is it the good
> conclusion
> of the story?
> 
> In fact, I think I never have well understood the meaning of the "rgw dns
> name"
> parameter. Can you confirm to me (or not) this:
> 
>     This parameter is *only* used when a S3 client accesses to a bucket with
>     the method http://<bucket-name>.<radosgw-address>. If we don't set this
>     parameter, such access will not work and a S3 client could access to a
>     bucket only with the method http://<radosgw-address>/<bucket-name>
> 
> Is it correct?

Yes.

Not sure why it *was* working in firefly. We did do some work around this in 
hammer, might have changed the behavior inadvertently.

Yehuda

> 
> Thx Yehuda and thx to Karan (who has pointed the real problem in fact ;)).
> 
> --
> François Lafont
> _______________________________________________
> 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