RGW has supported since forever. Originally it was the only supported frontend, and nowadays it is the least preferred one. Rgw was first developed over fastcgi + lighttpd, but there were some issues with this setup, so we switched to fastcgi + apache as our main supported configuration. This was also sub-optimal, as there wasn't a good, supported, and mainained fastcgi module for apache that we could find. At the time there were two modules: mod_fcgid, and mod_fastcgi. The former had a major flaw, which it buffered all PUTs before sending them to the backend (rgw). It also didn't really support 100-continue. The latter was mostly unmaintained, and didn't quite support 100-continue either. We ended up maintaining a fork of mod_fastcgi for quite a while, which was a pain. Later came mod-proxy-fcgi, which also didn't fully support 100-continue (iirc), but it was maintained, and was good enough to use out of the box, so we settled on it. At that time we already had civetweb as a frontend, so we didn't really worry about it. Now, I'd like to know whether anyone actually uses and needs fastcgi. I get an occasional request to remove it altogether, and I'd like to have some more info before we go and do it. The requests for removal usually cite security reasons, but I can also add 'we don't really want to maintain it anymore'. A valid replacement for fastcgi could be using civetweb directly, or using mod-proxy (in apache, I'd expect similar solution in other webservers) with civetweb as the rgw frontend. TL;DR: Does anyone care if we remove support for fastcgi in rgw? Yehuda _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |