>> 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. >You can use multiple placement targets and can specify on bucket >creation which placement target to use. At this time we don't support >the exact S3 reduced redundancy fields, although it should be pretty >easy to add. OK. Could you please guide us to implement the above. >>>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. >I think #8929 would cover it. The above issue for bucket lifecyle, but we are storing the object/buckets on a separate disk like RRS type. I think, its needed to support an object to be stored based on the option (default on standard storage). Thanks Swami On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:32 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> Thanks for quick reply. >> >>>Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's >> >> No. I meant that - Ceph interaction with a glacier and RRS type of >> storages along with currently used OSD (or standard storage). >> >>>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. > > You can use multiple placement targets and can specify on bucket > creation which placement target to use. At this time we don't support > the exact S3 reduced redundancy fields, although it should be pretty > easy to add. > >> >>>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. > > I think #8929 would cover it. > > Yehuda > >> >>>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. >> >> 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
