I fully support Wido. We also have no problems. OS: CentOS7 [root@s3backup etc]# ceph -v ceph version 0.80.8 (69eaad7f8308f21573c604f121956e64679a52a7)
2015-02-26 13:22 GMT+03:00 Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com>: > Hi Sage, > > We switched from apache+fastcgi to civetweb (+haproxy) around one > month ago and so far it is working quite well. Just like GuangYang, we > had seen many error 500's with fastcgi, but we never investigated it > deeply. After moving to civetweb we don't get any errors at all no > matter what load we send to the gateways. > > Here are some details: > - the whole cluster, radosgw included, is firefly 0.80.8 and > Scientific Linux 6.6 > - we have 6 gateways, each running on a 2-core VM > - civetweb is listening on 8080 > - haproxy is listening on _each_ gateway VM on 80 and 443 and > proxying to the radosgw's > - so far we've written ~20 million objects (mostly very small) > through civetweb. > > Our feedback is that the civetweb configuration is _much_ easier, much > cleaner, and more reliable than what we had with apache+fastcgi. > Before, we needed the non-standard apache (with 100-continue support) > and the fastcgi config was always error-prone. > > The main goals we had for adding haproxy were for load balancing and > to add SSL. Currently haproxy is configured to balance the http > sessions evenly over all of our gateways -- one civetweb feature which > would be nice to have would be a /health report (which returns e.g. > some "load" metric for that gateway) that we could feed into haproxy > so it would be able to better balance the load. > > In conclusion, +1 from us... AFAWCT civetweb is the way to go for Red > Hat's future supported configuration. > > Best Regards, Dan (+Herve who did the work!) > > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > We are considering switching to civetweb (the embedded/standalone rgw web > > server) as the primary supported RGW frontend instead of the current > > apache + mod-fastcgi or mod-proxy-fcgi approach. "Supported" here means > > both the primary platform the upstream development focuses on and what > the > > downstream Red Hat product will officially support. > > > > How many people are using RGW standalone using the embedded civetweb > > server instead of apache? In production? At what scale? What > > version(s) (civetweb first appeared in firefly and we've backported most > > fixes). > > > > Have you seen any problems? Any other feedback? The hope is to (vastly) > > simplify deployment. > > > > Thanks! > > sage > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > -- С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович Моб.: +79229045757
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
