I just set this up as well and had the same issue with s3cmd ws-create not working. Adding "rgw_enable_static_website = true" to the s3 api gateways solved it. This does appear to be the correct solution. The s3website api gateways are serving their error messages in html and the s3 api gateways are in xml still.
Ryan
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:49 AM Casey Bodley <cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/24/19 8:38 PM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote:
> Dear Cephers,
>
> I have a question concerning static websites with RGW.
> To my understanding, it is best to run >=1 RGW client for "classic" S3 and in addition operate >=1 RGW client for website serving
> (potentially with HAProxy or its friends in front) to prevent messup of requests via the different protocols.
>
> I'd prefer to avoid "*.example.com" entries in DNS if possible.
> So my current setup has these settings for the "web" RGW client:
> rgw_enable_static_website = true
> rgw_enable_apis = s3website
> rgw_dns_s3website_name = some_value_unused_when_A_records_are_used_pointing_to_the_IP_but_it_needs_to_be_set
> and I create simple A records for each website pointing to the IP of this "web" RGW node.
>
> I can easily upload content for those websites to the other RGW instances which are serving S3,
> so S3 and s3website APIs are cleanly separated in separate instances.
>
> However, one issue remains: How do I run
> s3cmd ws-create
> on each website-bucket once?
> I can't do that against the "classic" S3-serving RGW nodes. This will give me a 405 (not allowed),
> since they do not have rgw_enable_static_website enabled.
> I also can not run it against the "web S3" nodes, since they do not have the S3 API enabled.
> Of course I could enable that, but then the RGW node can't cleanly disentangle S3 and website requests since I use A records.
>
> Does somebody have a good idea on how to solve this issue?
> Setting "rgw_enable_static_website = true" on the S3-serving RGW nodes would solve it, but does that have any bad side-effects on their S3 operation?
Enabling static website on the gateway serving the S3 api does look like
the right solution. As far as I can tell, it's only used to control
whether the S3 ops for PutBucketWebsite, GetBucketWebsite, and
DeleteBucketWebsite are exposed.
>
> Also, if there's an expert on this: Exposing a bucket under a tenant as static website is not possible since the colon (:) can't be encoded in DNS, right?
>
>
> In case somebody also wants to set something like this up, here are the best docs I could find:
> https://gist.github.com/robbat2/ec0a66eed28e5f0e1ef7018e9c77910c
> and of course:
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_ceph_storage/2/html-single/object_gateway_guide_for_red_hat_enterprise_linux/index#configuring_gateways_for_static_web_hosting
>
>
> Cheers,
> Oliver
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
