Hello Fabio, we use cephadm orchestrator after upgrading to Quincy, As you said, after complete RGW redeploy, new default.rgw.(xyz) and .rgw.root pools appeared and now everything works fine. It's also described here: https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/radosgw/pools/ But one question. If we deploy with the dashboard an additional rgw service with ID "customers" for instance. Will there be deployed a new placement and pools called customers.rgw.... ? Thanks and best regards Christoph PS Belonging to “invalid constraint” errors I checked several bug tracks and so on, but I didn't find any valid solution. https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/21583 https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18333 https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/44926#note-15 Am Di., 8. Nov. 2022 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Fabio Pasetti < fabio.pasetti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi Christoph, > I’m using rgw at pacific release 16.2.10 but I obtain occasionally the > same 500 error due to “invalid constraint” but it seems to be completely > random error.. > > About the pools: yes, these are the defaults pools that were created by > rgw during the first deploy so if you don’t use them,you can delete them. > > About the re-creation from scratch I’m pretty sure that if you are using > ceph ansible or another tool to deploy rgws,it will create the pools > accordingly with the configuration of the zones. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 8 Nov 2022, at 11:34, Ackermann, Christoph <c.ackermann@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > Dear list members, > > > > we have a really old prod. cluster, meanwhile running Quincy(cephadm) > with > > RBD and CephFS very well. :-) > > > > Now we would like to establish S3 object store for a customer, but it > seems > > that our existing RGW stack of Pools and RadosGateways are somewhat > broken > > due to lots of Upgrades etc. For instance, if iwetry to create a bucket > > with the dashboard... > > > > 500 - Internal Server Error > > RGW REST API failed request with status code 400 > > (b'{"Code":"InvalidLocationConstraint","Message":"The specified > > location-constr' b'aint is not > > valid","BucketName":"test23","RequestId":"tx00000b9944347834bd4b' > > b'6-006369283b-53efce9-default","HostId":"53efce9-default-default"}') > > > > > > > > Because we actually *do not use* RGW, are we fine to remove RGW services > > and all originally created "rgw" pools? > > > > .rgw.root > > default.rgw.control > > default.rgw.meta > > default.rgw.log > > default.rgw.buckets.index > > default.rgw.buckets.data > > > > Is it right that all required pools for the "default" zone(group) will be > > created "from scratch" if the first rgw daemon is deployed? > > > > Thanks for any explanation > > Christoph Ackermann > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
 |