29 Oct
2019
29 Oct
'19
10:13 a.m.
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(a)redhat.com> 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://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_ceph_storage/2/html-s…
Cheers,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io