25 Oct
2019
25 Oct
'19
6:08 a.m.
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?
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-s…
Cheers,
Oliver
25 Oct
25 Oct
6:42 p.m.
On 25/10/2019 02:38, Oliver Freyermuth wrote:
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?
There are certainly much better-qualified radosgw experts than I am, but
as I understand it multi-tenanted radosgw is incompatible with bucket
hostnames in general (whether static websites are involved or not), for
the very reason you mention. It's documented here:
https://docs.ceph.com/docs/nautilus/radosgw/multitenancy/#accessing-buckets…
(look for "Note that it’s not possible to supply an explicit tenant
using a hostname").
Cheers,
Florian
7:13 p.m.
New subject: [EXTERNAL] Static website hosting with RGW
Hi Oliver,
In order to run the `s3cmd ws-create`, you need to run it against an RGW that has the
following settings:
rgw_enable_static_website = true
rgw_enable_apis = s3, s3website
You can choose to do so temporarily if you only need to apply that config once, or leave
it running indefinitely. We run our webhosting cluster with s3 and s3website enabled on
all RGWs, largely because we have all our RGW instances behind one VIP, and do so for
customer convenience.
It is possible to expose a bucket that is a member of a tenant as a static website,
however it is not possible to access it via virtual hosted style addressing, you must use
path style addressing to access it.
Virtual hosted style addressing: <bucketname>.<rgw_hostname>
Path style addressing: <rgw_hostname>/<bucketname>, or in the case of a tenant
bucket: <rgw_hostname>/<tenant>:<bucketname>
Hope this helps.
-Ben
On 10/24/19, 7:38 PM, "Oliver Freyermuth" <freyermuth(a)physik.uni-bonn.de>
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?
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-s…
Cheers,
Oliver
27 Oct
27 Oct
9:31 a.m.
New subject: [EXTERNAL] Static website hosting with RGW
Dear Ben,
many thanks to you, and also to Florian, this indeed helps! My "tenant"
question is completely answered.
However, running with "rgw_enable_apis = s3, s3website" as you suggested
(notably, leaving s3 on) causes an issue for me when exposing the website
buckets via A records:
What I am currently doing is creating an A record in DNS pointing to the VIP
and then giving the bucket a name matching the site. However, when "s3" is
enabled in addition to "s3website", this causes static website access to
fail, since the endpoint then "talks s3" even when accessed by a browser.
It seems this is the downside of this setup mentioned here:
https://gist.github.com/robbat2/ec0a66eed28e5f0e1ef7018e9c77910c#running-de…
Which technique are you using - CNAME entries?
A solution I could think of to support this setup: We could run separate
RGWs with s3website and others with s3. However, to run ws-create (I would
love to be able to do this without temporary reconfiguration), I'd then have
to enable "rgw_enable_static_website = true" on the nodes meant for s3
usage.
But: Will that cause any potential misbehaviour for s3-only users?
Cheers,
Oliver
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:43:38 +0000
Benjamin.Zieglmeier <Benjamin.Zieglmeier(a)target.com> wrote:
Hi Oliver,
In order to run the `s3cmd ws-create`, you need to run it against an RGW that has the
following settings:
rgw_enable_static_website = true
rgw_enable_apis = s3, s3website
You can choose to do so temporarily if you only need to apply that config once, or leave
it running indefinitely. We run our
webhosting cluster with s3 and s3website enabled on all RGWs, largely because we have all
our RGW instances behind one VIP, and
do so for customer convenience.
It is possible to expose a bucket that is a member of a tenant as a static website,
however it is not possible to access it via
virtual hosted style addressing, you must use path style addressing to access it.
Virtual hosted style addressing: <bucketname>.<rgw_hostname>
Path style addressing: <rgw_hostname>/<bucketname>, or in the case of a
tenant bucket: <rgw_hostname>/<tenant>:<bucketname>
Hope this helps.
-Ben
On 10/24/19, 7:38 PM, "Oliver Freyermuth" <freyermuth(a)physik.uni-bonn.de>
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?
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-s…
Cheers,
Oliver
28 Oct
28 Oct
8:18 p.m.
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-s…
Cheers,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
29 Oct
29 Oct
1:45 a.m.
Am 28.10.19 um 15:48 schrieb Casey Bodley:
On 10/24/19 8:38 PM, Oliver Freyermuth wrote:
Thanks, that's also how I would read the code at first glance - good to see it
confirmed. Then this is what we'll use :-).
Cheers,
Oliver
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-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 
6:43 p.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
1641
days inactive
1645
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Benjamin.Zieglmeier -
Casey Bodley -
Florian Haas -
Oliver Freyermuth -
Ryan