>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). Thats correct. If we could do the with a different rados pool using 2x replicas along with CURSH mapping it to different h/w (with bigger and cheaper disks) , then its same as RRS support in AWS. >> >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. Sure, I will create a new feature ticket and add the needful information there. Thanks Swami On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
