On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Martin Packman <
martin.pack...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 23/03/2016, Ryan Beisner wrote:
> >
> > To summarize:
> > If we do nothing with regard to juju 1.25.x or the various tools, and if
> a
> > relevant charm grows a series list in metadata, a load of existing
Hi,
I don't know if I am at the correct place to ask this question. If not, please
refer me to the correct mailing list since I couldn't find it myself.
I'm trying to setup a 3 node ceph cluster with radosgw and have cinder, glance
and swift data written to it.
Cinder and glance are function
James,
You can manage ceph radosgw quotas via the radosgw-admin command -
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/hammer/radosgw/admin/
I'm not sure if the general object storage APIs apply from OpenStack, but
in general Ceph is S3 compatible and not Swift compatible. If there's an
API difference, Ceph will le
Billy,
I'm thinking the radosgw and swift object-store apis must be similar to
some degree because we use the same clients to access either one with
consistent functionality despite the underlying object-store implementation.
Concerning swift support, I feel radosgw supports both s3 and swift to
Notice the `user_quota` and `bucket_quota` here:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/15563242/.
I am still limited by the default account quota using both juju-dev, and
juju-common users. I feel this helps verify that the quota is not being set
at the radosgw level.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:43 PM, James B
*ubuntu*
Update the charm proof command to be backwards-compatible. +1, merged.
https://code.launchpad.net/~1chb1n/charms/trusty/ubuntu/update-charm-proof/+merge/290196
*mongodb*
Update the charm proof command to be backwards-compatible and update the
maintainers list. +1, merged.
https://code.l
On Mar 29, 2016 3:47 AM, "William (Will) Forsyth" <
william.fors...@liferay.com> wrote:
> A feature that I think would clean up the deployment of multi-charm
> bundles would be the ability to deploy directly to lxc containers without
> specifying or pre-adding a machine.
>
I'm not sure of the de
