Hi Yehuda,
Thanks again! In the end I fixed this by stop/starting radosgw (I had
previously relied on 'radosgw reload' as suggested in the blog post).
Now, having tested with this setup (intending to segregate both buckets
and index - see config below) this doesn't seem to (fully) achieve my
"multi-tenancy" aims - to restate:
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
Whilst both the dedicated bucket and index pools get objects written to,
I noticed that the bucket name conflict across buckets (1. above)
persists; I had speculated that having a dedicated index might cater for
this. Specifically I noticed that creation of new buckets/objets
results in entries in the ".rgw" (root) pool.
I don't actually mind too much requirement 1 above (even AWS gets away
with this!); I'm more interested in 2 (ability to backup/restore tenants
independently).. Do you think this setup will achieve this or does the
shared data in .rgw make it a non-starter?
Many thanks
Christian
PS: Setup of the placement rule for reference:
{ "key": "placement-user2",
"val": { "index_pool": ".rgw.index.user2",
"data_pool": ".rgw.buckets.user2",
"data_extra_pool": ".rgw.buckets.extra"}}
On 08/10/15 23:46, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
When you start radosgw, do you explicitly state the name of the region
that gateway belongs to?
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Christian Sarrasin
<c.nntp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Yehuda,
Yes I did run "radosgw-admin regionmap update" and the regionmap appears to
know about my custom placement_target. Any other idea?
Thanks a lot
Christian
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
