After discovering this excellent blog post [1], I thought that taking
advantage of users' "default_placement" feature would be a preferable
way to achieve my multi-tenancy requirements (see previous post).
Alas I seem to be hitting a snag. Any attempt to create a bucket with a
user setup with a non-empty default_placement results in a 400 error
thrown back to the client and the following msg in the radosgw logs:
"could not find placement rule placement-user2 within region"
(The pools exist, I reloaded the radosgw service and ran 'radosgw-admin
regionmap update' as suggested in the blog post before running the
client test)
Here's the setup. What am I doing wrong? Any insight is really
appreciated!
radosgw-admin region get
{ "name": "default",
"api_name": "",
"is_master": "true",
"endpoints": [],
"master_zone": "",
"zones": [
{ "name": "default",
"endpoints": [],
"log_meta": "false",
"log_data": "false"}],
"placement_targets": [
{ "name": "default-placement",
"tags": []},
{ "name": "placement-user2",
"tags": []}],
"default_placement": "default-placement"}
radosgw-admin zone get default
{ "domain_root": ".rgw",
"control_pool": ".rgw.control",
"gc_pool": ".rgw.gc",
"log_pool": ".log",
"intent_log_pool": ".intent-log",
"usage_log_pool": ".usage",
"user_keys_pool": ".users",
"user_email_pool": ".users.email",
"user_swift_pool": ".users.swift",
"user_uid_pool": ".users.uid",
"system_key": { "access_key": "",
"secret_key": ""},
"placement_pools": [
{ "key": "default-placement",
"val": { "index_pool": ".rgw.buckets.index",
"data_pool": ".rgw.buckets",
"data_extra_pool": ".rgw.buckets.extra"}},
{ "key": "placement-user2",
"val": { "index_pool": ".rgw.index.user2",
"data_pool": ".rgw.buckets.user2",
"data_extra_pool": ".rgw.buckets.extra"}}]}
radosgw-admin user info --uid=user2
{ "user_id": "user2",
"display_name": "User2",
"email": "",
"suspended": 0,
"max_buckets": 1000,
"auid": 0,
"subusers": [],
"keys": [
{ "user": "user2",
"access_key": "VYM2EEU1X5H6Y82D0K4F",
"secret_key": "vEeJ9+yadvtqZrb2xoCAEuM2AlVyZ7UTArbfIEek"}],
"swift_keys": [],
"caps": [],
"op_mask": "read, write, delete",
"default_placement": "placement-user2",
"placement_tags": [],
"bucket_quota": { "enabled": false,
"max_size_kb": -1,
"max_objects": -1},
"user_quota": { "enabled": false,
"max_size_kb": -1,
"max_objects": -1},
"temp_url_keys": []}
[1] http://cephnotes.ksperis.com/blog/2014/11/28/placement-pools-on-rados-gw
On 03/10/15 19:48, Christian Sarrasin wrote:
What are the best options to setup the Ceph radosgw so it supports
separate/independent "tenants"? What I'm after:
1. Ensure isolation between tenants, ie: no overlap/conflict in bucket
namespace; something separate radosgw "users" doesn't achieve
2. Ability to backup/restore tenants' pools individually
Referring to the docs [1], it seems this could possibly be achieved with
zones; one zone per tenant and leave out synchronization. Seems a little
heavy handed and presumably the overhead is non-negligible.
Is this "supported"? Is there a better way?
I'm running Firefly. I'm also rather new to Ceph so apologies if this is
already covered somewhere; kindly send pointers if so...
Cheers,
Christian
PS: cross-posted from [2]
[1] http://docs.ceph.com/docs/v0.80/radosgw/federated-config/
[2]
http://serverfault.com/questions/726491/how-to-setup-ceph-radosgw-to-support-multi-tenancy
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
