On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > Hi Sage, > Thanks for quick reply. > > >what you mean. > >For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with > >reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite > >the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW > >buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could > >make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. > > Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like > reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost > (instead of > standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could > similarly in ceph too. What do you mean by "RRS storage-low cost storage"? My read of the RRS numbers is that they simply have a different tier of S3 that runs fewer replicas and (probably) cheaper disks. In radosgw-land, this would just be a different rados pool with 2x replicas and (probably) a CRUSH rule mapping it to different hardware (with bigger and/or cheaper disks). > >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of > >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything > >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. > > OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to S3. Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in the ticket. > >When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure > >this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning > >first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on > >this right away... > > Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we > are happy support you here. Great to hear! Thanks- sage > > Thanks > Swami > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > >> Hi Sage, > >> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object > >> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log > >> file etc.? > > > > Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's > > what you mean. > > > > For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with > > reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite > > the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW > > buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could > > make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. > > > > What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of > > individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything > > architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. > > > > When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure > > this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning > > first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on > > this right away... > > > > sage > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> Swami > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> <swamireddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hi , > >> > > >> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > >> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > >> > > >> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > >> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > >> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > >> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > >> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > >> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > >> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > >> > > >> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > >> > storage and delete from that storage? > >> > > >> > 2. To support the object notifications: > >> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > >> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > >> > object storage, > >> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > >> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > >> > > >> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> > <swamireddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Hi Yehuda, > >> >> > >> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > >> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > >> >> > >> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > >> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > >> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > >> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > >> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > >> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > >> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > >> >> > >> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > >> >> storage and delete from that storage? > >> >> > >> >> 2. To support the object notifications: > >> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > >> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > >> >> object storage, > >> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > >> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > >> >> > >> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> Swami > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>> Bucket lifecycle: > >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 > >> >>> > >> >>> Bucket notification: > >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 > >> >>> > >> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> >>> <swamireddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket > >> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. > >> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? > >> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we > >> >>>> start working on this asap. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks > >> >>>> Swami > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> >>>>> <swamireddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. > >> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM > >> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, > >> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 > >> >>>>>> API support. > >> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one > >> >>>>>> planned to work on. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open > >> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already > >> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on > >> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather > >> >>>>> later. > >> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a > >> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the > >> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have > >> >>>>> that first. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Yehuda > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thanks > >> >>>>>> Swami > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? > >> >>>>>>>> or > >> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or > >> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? > >> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> sage > >> >>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > >> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >>>>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
