Le lun. 22 févr. 2021, à 10 h 34, Janne Johansson <icepic.dz@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > Den mån 22 feb. 2021 kl 15:27 skrev Simon Pierre DESROSIERS < > simonpierre.desrosiers@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Hello, >> >> We have functional ceph swarm with a pair of S3 rgw in front that uses >> A.B.C.D domain to be accessed. >> >> Now a new client asks to have access using the domain : E.C.D, but to >> already existing buckets. This is not a scenario discussed in the docs. >> Apparently, looking at the code and by trying it, rgw does not support >> multiple domains for the variable rgw_dns_name. >> >> But reading through parts of the code, I am no dev, and my c++ is 25 years >> rusty, I get the impression that maybe we could just add a second pair of >> rgw S3 servers that would give service to the same buckets, but using a >> different domain. >> >> Am I wrong ? Let's say this works, is this an unconscious behaviour that >> the ceph team would remove down the road ? >> > > We run this, a LB sends to one pool for one DNS name and to another pool > for a different DNS name, and both rgws serve the "same" buckets. > How can they serve the "same" buckets if they are in different ceph pools ? Am I understanding you correctly ? To me, same bucket means same objects. So if I were to deploy a new pair of RGWS with the new domain, would it create a bunch of new pools in ceph to store its objects or reuse the preexisting ones ? > Since S3 auth v4 the dns name is very much a part of the hash to make your > access work, so whatever the client thinks is the DNS name is what it will > use to make the hash-of-hash-of-hash* combination to auth itself. > > We haven't made a huge attempt to break it by doing wacky parallel accesses > from both directions, but it seems to work to move off clients from old > name > to new name and the stragglers that will never change will get the old > small > LB pool and the clients with a decent config get better service. > I have a need for parallel access, have you tried it ? > In our case the domains are completely different, so not A.B.C.D vs B.C.D > but > rather F.G.H.I instead. > > *) SIGNATURE=$(HMAC-SHA256h $(HMAC-SHA256h $(HMAC-SHA256h $(HMAC-SHA256h > $(HMAC-SHA256s $AWS4SECRET $REQUEST_DATE ) $REQUEST_REGION) > $REQUEST_SERVICE) "aws4_request") $UPLOAD_REQUEST) > > -- > May the most significant bit of your life be positive. > -- **AVERTISSEMENT** : Ce courriel et les pièces qui y sont jointes sont destinés exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionné(s) ci-dessus et peuvent contenir de l’information privilégiée ou confidentielle. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, ou s’il ne vous est pas destiné, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l’expéditeur et effacer ce courriel ainsi que les pièces jointes, le cas échéant. La copie ou la redistribution non autorisée de ce courriel peut être illégale. Le contenu de ce courriel ne peut être interprété qu’en conformité avec les lois et règlements qui régissent les pouvoirs des diverses instances décisionnelles compétentes de la Ville de Montréal. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |