According to the log here, it says that the location constraint it got is "cn", can you take a look at a tcpdump, see if that's actually what's passed in? On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:02 PM, David Turner <drakonstein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I run with `debug rgw = 10` and was able to find these lines at the end of a > request to create the bucket. > > Successfully creating a bucket with `bucket_location = US` looks like > [1]this. Failing to create a bucket has "ERROR: S3 error: 400 > (InvalidLocationConstraint): The specified location-constraint is not valid" > on the CLI and [2]this (excerpt from the end of the request) in the rgw log > (debug level 10). "create bucket location constraint" was not found in the > log for successfully creating the bucket. > > > [1] > 2018-02-26 19:52:36.419251 7f4bc9bc8700 10 cache put: > name=local-atl.rgw.data.root++.bucket.meta.testerton:bef43c26-daf3-47ef-a3a5-e1167e3f88ac.39099765.1 > info.flags=0x17 > 2018-02-26 19:52:36.419262 7f4bc9bc8700 10 adding > local-atl.rgw.data.root++.bucket.meta.testerton:bef43c26-daf3-47ef-a3a5-e1167e3f88ac.39099765.1 > to cache LRU end > 2018-02-26 19:52:36.419266 7f4bc9bc8700 10 updating xattr: name=user.rgw.acl > bl.length()=141 > 2018-02-26 19:52:36.423863 7f4bc9bc8700 10 RGWWatcher::handle_notify() > notify_id 344855809097728 cookie 139963970426880 notifier 39099765 > bl.length()=361 > 2018-02-26 19:52:36.423875 7f4bc9bc8700 10 cache put: > name=local-atl.rgw.data.root++testerton info.flags=0x17 > 2018-02-26 19:52:36.423882 7f4bc9bc8700 10 adding > local-atl.rgw.data.root++testerton to cache LRU end > > [2] > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.340289 7f466bbca700 2 req 428078:0.004204:s3:PUT > /testraint/:create_bucket:executing > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.340366 7f466bbca700 5 NOTICE: call to > do_aws4_auth_completion > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.340472 7f466bbca700 10 v4 auth ok -- > do_aws4_auth_completion > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.340715 7f466bbca700 10 create bucket location > constraint: cn > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.340766 7f466bbca700 0 location constraint (cn) can't be > found. > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.340794 7f466bbca700 2 req 428078:0.004701:s3:PUT > /testraint/:create_bucket:completing > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.341782 7f466bbca700 2 req 428078:0.005689:s3:PUT > /testraint/:create_bucket:op status=-2208 > 2018-02-26 19:43:37.341792 7f466bbca700 2 req 428078:0.005707:s3:PUT > /testraint/:create_bucket:http status=400 > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> I'm not sure if the rgw logs (debug rgw = 20) specify explicitly why a >> bucket creation is rejected in these cases, but it might be worth >> trying to look at these. If not, then a tcpdump of the specific failed >> request might shed some light (would be interesting to look at the >> generated LocationConstraint). >> >> Yehuda >> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, David Turner <drakonstein@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > Our problem only appeared to be present in bucket creation. Listing, >> > putting, etc objects in a bucket work just fine regardless of the >> > bucket_location setting. I ran this test on a few different realms to >> > see >> > what would happen and only 1 of them had a problem. There isn't an >> > obvious >> > thing that steps out about it. The 2 local realms do not have >> > multi-site, >> > the internal realm has multi-site and the operations were performed on >> > the >> > primary zone for the zonegroup. >> > >> > Worked with non 'US' bucket_location for s3cmd to create bucket: >> > realm=internal >> > zonegroup=internal-ga >> > zone=internal-atl >> > >> > Failed with non 'US' bucket_location for s3cmd to create bucket: >> > realm=local-atl >> > zonegroup=local-atl >> > zone=local-atl >> > >> > Worked with non 'US' bucket_location for s3cmd to create bucket: >> > realm=local >> > zonegroup=local >> > zone=local >> > >> > I was thinking it might have to do with all of the parts being named the >> > same, but I made sure to do the last test to confirm. Interestingly >> > it's >> > only bucket creation that has a problem and it's fine as long as I put >> > 'US' >> > as the bucket_location. >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:48 PM F21 <f21.groups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> I am using the official ceph/daemon docker image. It starts RGW and >> >> creates a zonegroup and zone with their names set to an empty string: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-container/blob/master/ceph-releases/luminous/ubuntu/16.04/daemon/start_rgw.sh#L36:54 >> >> >> >> $RGW_ZONEGROUP and $RGW_ZONE are both empty strings by default: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph-container/blob/master/ceph-releases/luminous/ubuntu/16.04/daemon/variables_entrypoint.sh#L46 >> >> >> >> Here's what I get when I query RGW: >> >> >> >> $ radosgw-admin zonegroup list >> >> { >> >> "default_info": "", >> >> "zonegroups": [ >> >> "default" >> >> ] >> >> } >> >> >> >> $ radosgw-admin zone list >> >> { >> >> "default_info": "", >> >> "zones": [ >> >> "default" >> >> ] >> >> } >> >> >> >> On 20/02/2018 10:33 AM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >> >> > What is the name of your zonegroup? >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:29 PM, F21 <f21.groups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> I've done some debugging and the LocationConstraint is not being set >> >> >> by >> >> >> the >> >> >> SDK by default. >> >> >> >> >> >> I do, however, need to set the region on the client to us-east-1 for >> >> >> it >> >> >> to >> >> >> work. Anything else will return an InvalidLocationConstraint error. >> >> >> >> >> >> Francis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 20/02/2018 8:40 AM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >> >> >>> Sounds like the go sdk adds a location constraint to requests that >> >> >>> don't go to us-east-1. RGW itself is definitely isn't tied to >> >> >>> us-east-1, and does not know anything about it (unless you happen >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> have a zonegroup named us-east-1). Maybe there's a way to configure >> >> >>> the sdk to avoid doing that? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Yehuda >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 1:54 PM, F21 <f21.groups@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>>> I am using the AWS Go SDK v2 >> >> >>>> (https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2) >> >> >>>> to >> >> >>>> talk >> >> >>>> to my RGW instance using the s3 interface. I am running ceph in >> >> >>>> docker >> >> >>>> using >> >> >>>> the ceph/daemon docker images in demo mode. The RGW is started >> >> >>>> with a >> >> >>>> zonegroup and zone with their names set to an empty string by the >> >> >>>> scripts >> >> >>>> in >> >> >>>> the image. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I have ForcePathStyle for the client set to true, because I want >> >> >>>> to >> >> >>>> access >> >> >>>> all my buckets using the path: myrgw.instance:8080/somebucket. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I noticed that if I set the region for the client to anything >> >> >>>> other >> >> >>>> than >> >> >>>> us-east-1, I get this error when creating a bucket: >> >> >>>> InvalidLocationConstraint: The specified location-constraint is >> >> >>>> not >> >> >>>> valid. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> If I set the region in the client to something made up, such as >> >> >>>> "ceph" >> >> >>>> and >> >> >>>> the LocationConstraint to "ceph", I still get the same error. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> The only way to get my buckets to create successfully is to set >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>> client's >> >> >>>> region to us-east-1. I have grepped the ceph code base and cannot >> >> >>>> find >> >> >>>> any >> >> >>>> references to us-east-1. In addition, I looked at the AWS docs for >> >> >>>> calculating v4 signatures and us-east-1 is the default region but >> >> >>>> I >> >> >>>> can >> >> >>>> see >> >> >>>> that the region string is used in the calculation (i.e. the region >> >> >>>> is >> >> >>>> not >> >> >>>> ignored when calculating the signature if it is set to us-east-1). >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Why do my buckets create successfully if I set the region in my s3 >> >> >>>> client >> >> >>>> to >> >> >>>> us-east-1, but not otherwise? If I do not want to use us-east-1 as >> >> >>>> my >> >> >>>> default region, for example, if I want us-west-1 as my default >> >> >>>> region, >> >> >>>> what >> >> >>>> should I be configuring in ceph? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Francis >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |