Likely date for Pacific backport for RGW fix?
Hi Our first upgrade (non-cephadm) from Octopus to Pacific 16.0.4 went very smoothly. Thanks for all the effort. The only thing that has bitten us is https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/50556 <https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/50556> which prevents a multipart upload to an RGW bucket that has a bucket policy. While I've been able to rewrite the most urgent scripts to use s3api put-object (which doesn't do multipart), that only works for objects up to a certain size. Removing the bucket policies isn't an option. I can see that it has been fixed, and is now pending backport (https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/51001 <https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/51001>). Will this be included in 16.0.5? And do we have an estimated date for that? We can wait a little longer, but otherwise I have to do some more drastic changes to an application. Having an indication of date would help me choose which... Many thanks, Chris
Hi, Cory was mark the backport PR as ready, after QA fix should be merged k Sent from my iPhone
On 16 Jun 2021, at 18:05, Chris Palmer <chris.palmer@idnet.com> wrote:
The only thing that has bitten us is https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/50556 <https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/50556> which prevents a multipart upload to an RGW bucket that has a bucket policy. While I've been able to rewrite the most urgent scripts to use s3api put-object (which doesn't do multipart), that only works for objects up to a certain size. Removing the bucket policies isn't an option.
I can see that it has been fixed, and is now pending backport (https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/51001 <https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/51001>). Will this be included in 16.0.5? And do we have an estimated date for that?
We can wait a little longer, but otherwise I have to do some more drastic changes to an application. Having an indication of date would help me choose which...
participants (2)
-
Chris Palmer
-
Konstantin Shalygin