Thanks.
--
Regards
Dominik
2013/12/3 Yehuda Sadeh :
> For bobtail at this point yes. You can try the unofficial version with
> that fix off the gitbuilder. Another option is to upgrade everything
> to dumpling.
>
> Yehuda
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
> wrote:
>> Thanks
For bobtail at this point yes. You can try the unofficial version with
that fix off the gitbuilder. Another option is to upgrade everything
to dumpling.
Yehuda
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
wrote:
> Thanks
> Workaround, don't use multipart when obj size == 0 ?
>
> On Dec 3,
Thanks
Workaround, don't use multipart when obj size == 0 ?
On Dec 3, 2013 6:43 AM, "Yehuda Sadeh" wrote:
> I created earlier an issue (6919) and updated it with the relevant
> issue. This has been fixed in dumpling, although I don't remember
> hitting the scenario that you did. Was probably hitt
I created earlier an issue (6919) and updated it with the relevant
issue. This has been fixed in dumpling, although I don't remember
hitting the scenario that you did. Was probably hitting it as part of
the development work that was done then.
In any case I created a branch with the relevant fixes
for another object.
http://pastebin.com/VkVAYgwn
2013/12/3 Yehuda Sadeh :
> I see. Do you have backtrace for the crash?
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
> wrote:
>> 0.56.7
>>
>> W dniu poniedziałek, 2 grudnia 2013 użytkownik Yehuda Sadeh napisał:
>>
>>> I'm having trouble re
I see. Do you have backtrace for the crash?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
wrote:
> 0.56.7
>
> W dniu poniedziałek, 2 grudnia 2013 użytkownik Yehuda Sadeh napisał:
>
>> I'm having trouble reproducing the issue. What version are you using?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yehuda
>>
>> On Mon, D
0.56.7
W dniu poniedziałek, 2 grudnia 2013 użytkownik Yehuda Sadeh napisał:
> I'm having trouble reproducing the issue. What version are you using?
>
> Thanks,
> Yehuda
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Yehuda Sadeh
> >
> wrote:
> > Actually, I read that differently. It only says that if there
0.56.7
On Dec 2, 2013 11:30 PM, "Yehuda Sadeh" wrote:
> I'm having trouble reproducing the issue. What version are you using?
>
> Thanks,
> Yehuda
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Yehuda Sadeh wrote:
> > Actually, I read that differently. It only says that if there's more
> > than 1 part, all
I'm having trouble reproducing the issue. What version are you using?
Thanks,
Yehuda
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Yehuda Sadeh wrote:
> Actually, I read that differently. It only says that if there's more
> than 1 part, all parts except for the last one need to be > 5M. Which
> means that for
Actually, I read that differently. It only says that if there's more
than 1 part, all parts except for the last one need to be > 5M. Which
means that for uploads that are smaller than 5M there should be zero
or one parts.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
wrote:
> You're right.
>
You're right.
S3 api doc: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/mpUploadComplete.html
"Err:EntityTooSmall
Your proposed upload is smaller than the minimum allowed object size.
Each part must be at least 5 MB in size, except the last part."
Thanks.
This error should be triggered from rad
Looks like it. There should be a guard against it (mulitpart upload
minimum is 5M).
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
wrote:
> Yes, this is probably upload empty file.
> This is the problem?
>
> --
> Regards
> Dominik
>
>
> 2013/12/2 Yehuda Sadeh :
>> By any chance are you upload
Yes, this is probably upload empty file.
This is the problem?
--
Regards
Dominik
2013/12/2 Yehuda Sadeh :
> By any chance are you uploading empty objects through the multipart upload
> api?
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Another file with the same pro
By any chance are you uploading empty objects through the multipart upload api?
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Dominik Mostowiec
wrote:
> Hi,
> Another file with the same problems:
>
> 2013-12-01 11:37:15.556687 7f7891fd3700 1 == starting new request
> req=0x25406d0 =
> 2013-12-01 11:3
Hi,
Another file with the same problems:
2013-12-01 11:37:15.556687 7f7891fd3700 1 == starting new request
req=0x25406d0 =
2013-12-01 11:37:15.556739 7f7891fd3700 2 req 1314:0.52initializing
2013-12-01 11:37:15.556789 7f7891fd3700 10 s->object=files/192.txt
s->bucket=testbucket
2
Yes I can read it. Oryginal object is 0 size.
Regards
Dominik
On Dec 2, 2013 6:14 PM, "Yehuda Sadeh" wrote:
> That's unknown bug. I have a guess as to how the original object was
> created. Can you read the original object, but only copy fails?
> On Dec 2, 2013 4:53 AM, "Dominik Mostowiec"
> w
That's unknown bug. I have a guess as to how the original object was
created. Can you read the original object, but only copy fails?
On Dec 2, 2013 4:53 AM, "Dominik Mostowiec"
wrote:
> Hi,
> I found that issue is related with "ETag: -0" (ends -0)
> This is known bug ?
>
> --
> Regards
> Domi
Hi,
I found that issue is related with "ETag: -0" (ends -0)
This is known bug ?
--
Regards
Dominik
2013/12/2 Dominik Mostowiec :
> Hi,
> I have strange problem.
> Obj copy (0 size) killing radosgw.
>
> Head for this file:
> Content-Type: application/octet-stream
> Server: Apache/2.2.22 (Ubunt
Hi,
I have strange problem.
Obj copy (0 size) killing radosgw.
Head for this file:
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Server: Apache/2.2.22 (Ubuntu)
ETag: "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e-0"
Last-Modified: 2013-12-01T10:37:15Z
rgw log.
2013-12-02 08:18:59.196651 7f5308ff1700 1 == starti
19 matches
Mail list logo
