Double thanks for the on-topic reply. The other two repsonses, were making me doubt if my chinese (which I didn't study) is better than my english. >> I am a bit curious on how production ceph clusters are being used. I am >> reading here that the block storage is used a lot with openstack and >> proxmox, and via iscsi with vmare. >Have you looked at the Ceph User Surveys/Census? >https://ceph.com/ceph-blog/ceph-user-survey-2018-results/ >https://ceph.com/geen-categorie/results-from-the-ceph-census/ Sort of what I was looking for, so 42% use rgw, of which 74% s3. I guess this main archive usage, is mostly done by providers >> But I since nobody here is interested in a better rgw client for end >> users. I am wondering if the rgw is even being used like this, and what >> most production environments look like. >Your end-user client thread was specifically asking targeting GUI >clients on OSX & Windows. I feel that the GUI client usage of S3 >protocol has a much higher visibility to data size ratio than >automation/tooling usage. > >As the quantity of data by a single user increases, the odds that GUI >tools are used for it decreases, as it's MUCH more likely to be driven >by automation & tooling around the API. Hmm, interesting. I am having more soho clients. And was thinking of getting them such gui client. >My earliest Ceph production deployment was mostly RGW (~16TB raw), with >a little bit of RBD/iSCSI usage (~1TB of floating disk between VMs). >Very little of the RGW usage was GUI driven (there certainly was some, >because it made business sense to offer it rather than FTP sites; but it >tiny compared to the automation flows). > >My second production deployment I worked was Dreamhost's DreamObjects, >which was over 3PB then: and MOST of the usage was still not GUI-driven. > >I'm working at DigitalOcean's Spaces offering now; again, mostly non-GUI >access. > >For the second part of your original-query, I feel that any new clients >SHOULD not be RGW-specific; they should be able to work on a wide range >of services that expose the S3 API, and have a good test-suite around >that (s3-tests, but for testing the client implementation; even Boto is >not bug-free). > I think if you take the perspective of some end user that associates s3, with something like an audi and nothing else. It is quite necessary to have a client that is easy and secure to use, where you just enter preferably only two things, your access key and your secret. The advantage of having a more rgw specific gui client, is that you - do not have the default amazon 'advertisements' (think of storage classes etc.) - less configuration options, everything ceph does not support we do not need to configure. - no ftp, no what ever else, just this s3 - you do not have configuration options that ceph doesn't offer (eg. this life cycle, bucket access logging?) I can imagine if you have quite a few clients, you could get quite some questions to answer, about things not working. - you have better support for specific things like multi tenant account, etc. - for once the https urls are correctly advertised Whether one likes it or not ceph is afaik not fully s3 compatible _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |