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
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-ow...@vger.kernel.org
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
Thanks Sage for the quick reply!
-=Mike
On 2/26/15, 8:05 AM, Sage Weil sw...@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
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 sw...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
We tried to get radosgw working with Apache + mod_fastcgi, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Sage
On 25/02/15 19:31, Sage Weil wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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 sw...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
We
] 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
-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@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
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
I fully support Wido. We also have no problems.
OS: CentOS7
[root@s3backup etc]# ceph -v
ceph version 0.80.8 (69eaad7f8308f21573c604f121956e64679a52a7)
2015-02-26 13:22 GMT+03:00 Dan van der Ster d...@vanderster.com:
Hi Sage,
We switched from apache+fastcgi to civetweb (+haproxy) around one
Hi Sage,
We switched from apache+fastcgi to civetweb (+haproxy) around one
month ago and so far it is working quite well. Just like GuangYang, we
had seen many error 500's with fastcgi, but we never investigated it
deeply. After moving to civetweb we don't get any errors at all no
matter what
Sage,
I also support CivetWeb over Apache+FAST CGI. I tried HAProxy with
multiple CivetWeb+RGW instances, it performs very well. It is easy to
configure and gives better response time.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Irek Fasikhov malm...@gmail.com wrote:
I fully support Wido. We also have no
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
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
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?
Cool, I'll see if we have some cycles to look at it.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Sage Weil sw...@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
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 sw...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey,
We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web
server) as the primary supported RGW frontend
20 matches
Mail list logo
