[client.radosgw.gateway] host = radosgw1 keyring = /etc/ceph/ceph.client.radosgw.keyring rgw socket path = /var/run/ceph/ceph.radosgw.gateway.fastcgi.sock log file = /var/log/radosgw/client.radosgw.gateway.log rgw print continue = false rgw enable ops log = false rgw ops log rados = false rgw ops log data backlog = 4096 rgw frontends = civetweb port=7480 This is firefly on CentOS 6 connecting to a giant cluster. /etc/init.d/ceph-radosgw start Just make sure the user defined in /etc/init.d/ceph-radosgw can read/write to the files listed in the section (for us it was the apache user). On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Deneau, Tom <tom.deneau@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Robert -- > > We are still having trouble with this. > > Can you share your [client.radosgw.gateway] section of ceph.conf and > were there any other special things to be aware of? > > -- Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert LeBlanc > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM > To: Sage Weil > Cc: Ceph-User; ceph-devel > Subject: Re: 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 don't have any problems just focusing on civetweb. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 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 would like to try it to offer some feedback on >>> your question. >> >> In giant and hammer, it is enabled by default on port 7480. On >> firefly, you need to add the line >> >> rgw frontends = fastcgi, civetweb port=7480 >> >> to ceph.conf (you can of course adjust the port number if you like) >> and radosgw will run standalone w/ no apache or anything else. >> >> sage >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robert LeBlanc >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:31 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 >>> -- >>> 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |