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 <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
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 load we send to the gateways.
Here are some details:
- the whole cluster, radosgw included, is firefly 0.80.8 and
Scientific Linux 6.6
- we have 6 gateways, each running on a 2-core VM
- civetweb is listening on 8080
- haproxy is listening on _each_ gateway VM on 80 and 443 and
proxying to the radosgw's
- so far we've written ~20 million objects (mostly very small)
through civetweb.
Our feedback is that the civetweb configuration is _much_ easier, much
cleaner, and more reliable than what we had with apache+fastcgi.
Before, we needed the non-standard apache (with 100-continue support)
and the fastcgi config was always error-prone.
The main goals we had for adding haproxy were for load balancing and
to add SSL. Currently haproxy is configured to balance the http
sessions evenly over all of our gateways -- one civetweb feature which
would be nice to have would be a /health report (which returns e.g.
some "load" metric for that gateway) that we could feed into haproxy
so it would be able to better balance the load.
In conclusion, +1 from us... AFAWCT civetweb is the way to go for Red
Hat's future supported configuration.
Best Regards, Dan (+Herve who did the work!)
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 development focuses on and what the
> downstream Red Hat product will officially support.
>
> How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb
> server instead of apache? In production? At what scale? What
> version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most
> fixes).
>
> Have you seen any problems? Any other feedback? The hope is to (vastly)
> simplify deployment.
>
> Thanks!
> sage
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович
Моб.: +79229045757
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
