RGW has supported since forever. Originally it was the only supported
frontend, and nowadays it is the least preferred one.
Rgw was first developed over fastcgi + lighttpd, but there were some
issues with this setup, so we switched to fastcgi + apache as our main
supported configuration. This was
I'm using fastcgi/apache2 instead of civetweb (centos7) because i couldn't
get civetweb to work with SSL on port 443 and in a subdomain of my main
website.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
wrote:
> RGW has supported since forever. Originally it was the only supported
> front
I'm using fastcgi/apache2 instead of civetweb (centos7) because i couldn't
get civetweb to work with SSL on port 443 and in a subdomain of my main
website.
So I have domain.com, www.domain.com, s3.domain.com (RGW), and *.
s3.domain.com for the RGW buckets. As long as you can do the same with
civitw
> Op 5 mei 2017 om 21:51 schreef Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub :
>
>
> RGW has supported since forever. Originally it was the only supported
> frontend, and nowadays it is the least preferred one.
>
> Rgw was first developed over fastcgi + lighttpd, but there were some
> issues with this setup, so we s
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote:
>
> TL;DR: Does anyone care if we remove support for fastcgi in rgw?
Please remove it as soon as possible. The old libfcgi project's code
is a security liability. When upstream died, there was a severe lack
of coordination around distri
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
> wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR: Does anyone care if we remove support for fastcgi in rgw?
>
> Please remove it as soon as possible. The old libfcgi project's code
> is a security liability. When upst