* Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support [not found] <CANA9Uk55UZXtKzS=urk3Q+KY=DoWoTaCRf=rKiEtjt9y7FYw7A@mail.gmail.com> @ 2014-07-25 13:45 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-25 15:49 ` Sage Weil 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-25 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ceph-devel Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ Is there plan to support the ün supported item in the above table? or Any working on this? Thanks Swami -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-25 13:45 ` Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-25 15:49 ` Sage Weil 2014-07-25 17:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-27 0:41 ` Robin H. Johnson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Sage Weil @ 2014-07-25 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: ceph-devel On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. > > Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ > > Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? > or > Any working on this? Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... sage ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-25 15:49 ` Sage Weil @ 2014-07-25 17:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-25 18:01 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-07-27 0:41 ` Robin H. Johnson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-25 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sage Weil; +Cc: ceph-devel Thanks for quick reply. Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 API support. Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one planned to work on. Thanks Swami On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >> >> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >> >> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >> or >> Any working on this? > > Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or > up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. > > Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? > That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... > > sage ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-25 17:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-25 18:01 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-07-27 7:54 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-04 11:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-07-25 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for quick reply. > Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM > Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, > put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 > API support. > Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one > planned to work on. I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather later. With regard to object notification, it'll require having a notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have that first. Yehuda > > Thanks > Swami > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>> >>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>> >>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>> or >>> Any working on this? >> >> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >> >> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >> >> sage > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-25 18:01 ` Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-07-27 7:54 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-28 13:05 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-28 20:05 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-08-04 11:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 1 sibling, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-27 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket lifecycle? My team also could start help here. Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we start working on this asap. Thanks Swami On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for quick reply. >> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >> API support. >> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >> planned to work on. > > > I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open > for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already > (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on > our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather > later. > With regard to object notification, it'll require having a > notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the > gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have > that first. > > Yehuda > >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>> >>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>> >>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>> or >>>> Any working on this? >>> >>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>> >>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>> >>> sage >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-27 7:54 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-28 13:05 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-28 20:07 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-07-28 20:05 ` Yehuda Sadeh 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-28 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Can you please share the details on coverage of the ceph/s3-tests suite? (mean how many S3 compatibility APIs tests performed with s3-tests suite) Thanks Swami On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket > lifecycle? My team also could start help here. > Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? > Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we > start working on this asap. > > Thanks > Swami > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks for quick reply. >>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>> API support. >>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>> planned to work on. >> >> >> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >> later. >> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >> that first. >> >> Yehuda >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Swami >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>> >>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>> >>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>> or >>>>> Any working on this? >>>> >>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>> >>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>> >>>> sage >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-28 13:05 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-28 20:07 ` Yehuda Sadeh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-07-28 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel There's no good enumeration of the actual apis and features that are covered by this test. It's definitely a worthy cause to pursue though, and one that could be done with the help of a willing community member. The s3 test suite can be found here: https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests Thanks, Yehuda On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 6:05 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Can you please share the details on coverage of the ceph/s3-tests suite? > (mean how many S3 compatibility APIs tests performed with s3-tests suite) > > Thanks > Swami > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >> start working on this asap. >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>>> API support. >>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>>> planned to work on. >>> >>> >>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>> later. >>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>> that first. >>> >>> Yehuda >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Swami >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>>> >>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>>> or >>>>>> Any working on this? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>>> >>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>>> >>>>> sage >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-27 7:54 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-28 13:05 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-28 20:05 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-09-12 14:30 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-07-28 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Bucket lifecycle: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 Bucket notification: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket > lifecycle? My team also could start help here. > Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? > Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we > start working on this asap. > > Thanks > Swami > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks for quick reply. >>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>> API support. >>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>> planned to work on. >> >> >> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >> later. >> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >> that first. >> >> Yehuda >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Swami >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>> >>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>> >>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>> or >>>>> Any working on this? >>>> >>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>> >>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>> >>>> sage >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-28 20:05 ` Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-09-12 14:30 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-18 12:50 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-12 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Hi Yehuda, Could you please check and clarify the below question on object lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost storage and delete from that storage? 2. To support the object notifications: - First there should be low cost and high availability storage with single replica only. If an object created with this type of object storage, There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? Thanks Swami On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > Bucket lifecycle: > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 > > Bucket notification: > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >> start working on this asap. >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>>> API support. >>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>>> planned to work on. >>> >>> >>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>> later. >>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>> that first. >>> >>> Yehuda >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Swami >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>>> >>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>>> or >>>>>> Any working on this? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>>> >>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>>> >>>>> sage >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-12 14:30 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-18 12:50 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 5:24 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-18 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Hi , Could you please check and clarify the below question on object lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost storage and delete from that storage? 2. To support the object notifications: - First there should be low cost and high availability storage with single replica only. If an object created with this type of object storage, There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? Thanks On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yehuda, > > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > storage and delete from that storage? > > 2. To support the object notifications: > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > object storage, > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > > Thanks > Swami > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> Bucket lifecycle: >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >> >> Bucket notification: >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >>> start working on this asap. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Swami >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>>>> API support. >>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>>>> planned to work on. >>>> >>>> >>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>>> later. >>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>>> that first. >>>> >>>> Yehuda >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Swami >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> Any working on this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>>>> >>>>>> sage >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-18 12:50 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-19 5:24 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 5:38 ` Sage Weil 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-19 5:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Hi Sage, Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log file etc.? Thanks Swami On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi , > > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > storage and delete from that storage? > > 2. To support the object notifications: > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > object storage, > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > > Thanks > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Yehuda, >> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >> storage and delete from that storage? >> >> 2. To support the object notifications: >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >> object storage, >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Bucket lifecycle: >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >>> >>> Bucket notification: >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >>>> start working on this asap. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Swami >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>>>>> API support. >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>>>>> planned to work on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>>>> later. >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>>>> that first. >>>>> >>>>> Yehuda >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Swami >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> Any working on this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sage >>>>>> -- >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 5:24 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-19 5:38 ` Sage Weil 2014-09-19 15:32 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Sage Weil @ 2014-09-19 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Yehuda Sadeh, ceph-devel On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > Hi Sage, > Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object > storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log > file etc.? Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's what you mean. For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on this right away... sage > > Thanks > Swami > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi , > > > > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > > > > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > > > > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > > storage and delete from that storage? > > > > 2. To support the object notifications: > > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > > object storage, > > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > > > > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > > > > Thanks > > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Yehuda, > >> > >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > >> > >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > >> > >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > >> storage and delete from that storage? > >> > >> 2. To support the object notifications: > >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > >> object storage, > >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > >> > >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Swami > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> Bucket lifecycle: > >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 > >>> > >>> Bucket notification: > >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket > >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. > >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? > >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we > >>>> start working on this asap. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Swami > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. > >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM > >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, > >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 > >>>>>> API support. > >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one > >>>>>> planned to work on. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open > >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already > >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on > >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather > >>>>> later. > >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a > >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the > >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have > >>>>> that first. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yehuda > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> Swami > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> Any working on this? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or > >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? > >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> sage > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 5:38 ` Sage Weil @ 2014-09-19 15:32 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 15:38 ` Sage Weil 2014-09-19 16:45 ` Yehuda Sadeh 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-19 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Yehuda Sadeh, ceph-devel Hi Sage, Thanks for quick reply. >Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's No. I meant that - Ceph interaction with a glacier and RRS type of storages along with currently used OSD (or standard storage). >what you mean. >For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost (instead of standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could similarly in ceph too. >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. >When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >this right away... Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we are happy support you here. Thanks Swami On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object >> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log >> file etc.? > > Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's > what you mean. > > For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with > reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite > the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW > buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could > make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. > > What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of > individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything > architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. > > When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure > this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning > first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on > this right away... > > sage > > > >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi , >> > >> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >> > >> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >> > >> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >> > storage and delete from that storage? >> > >> > 2. To support the object notifications: >> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >> > object storage, >> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >> > >> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Yehuda, >> >> >> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >> >> >> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >> >> >> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >> >> storage and delete from that storage? >> >> >> >> 2. To support the object notifications: >> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >> >> object storage, >> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >> >> >> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Swami >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> Bucket lifecycle: >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >> >>> >> >>> Bucket notification: >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >> >>>> start working on this asap. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks >> >>>> Swami >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >> >>>>>> API support. >> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >> >>>>>> planned to work on. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >> >>>>> later. >> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >> >>>>> that first. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yehuda >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks >> >>>>>> Swami >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >> >>>>>>>> or >> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> sage >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 15:32 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-19 15:38 ` Sage Weil 2014-09-19 15:53 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 16:45 ` Yehuda Sadeh 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Sage Weil @ 2014-09-19 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Yehuda Sadeh, ceph-devel On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > Hi Sage, > Thanks for quick reply. > > >what you mean. > >For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with > >reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite > >the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW > >buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could > >make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. > > Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like > reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost > (instead of > standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could > similarly in ceph too. What do you mean by "RRS storage-low cost storage"? My read of the RRS numbers is that they simply have a different tier of S3 that runs fewer replicas and (probably) cheaper disks. In radosgw-land, this would just be a different rados pool with 2x replicas and (probably) a CRUSH rule mapping it to different hardware (with bigger and/or cheaper disks). > >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of > >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything > >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. > > OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to S3. Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in the ticket. > >When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure > >this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning > >first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on > >this right away... > > Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we > are happy support you here. Great to hear! Thanks- sage > > Thanks > Swami > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > >> Hi Sage, > >> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object > >> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log > >> file etc.? > > > > Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's > > what you mean. > > > > For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with > > reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite > > the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW > > buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could > > make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. > > > > What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of > > individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything > > architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. > > > > When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure > > this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning > > first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on > > this right away... > > > > sage > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> Swami > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi , > >> > > >> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > >> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > >> > > >> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > >> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > >> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > >> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > >> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > >> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > >> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > >> > > >> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > >> > storage and delete from that storage? > >> > > >> > 2. To support the object notifications: > >> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > >> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > >> > object storage, > >> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > >> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > >> > > >> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi Yehuda, > >> >> > >> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object > >> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: > >> >> > >> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the > >> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. > >> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: > >> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low > >> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. > >> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this > >> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. > >> >> > >> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost > >> >> storage and delete from that storage? > >> >> > >> >> 2. To support the object notifications: > >> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage > >> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of > >> >> object storage, > >> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object > >> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. > >> >> > >> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks > >> >> Swami > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >>> Bucket lifecycle: > >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 > >> >>> > >> >>> Bucket notification: > >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 > >> >>> > >> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket > >> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. > >> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? > >> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we > >> >>>> start working on this asap. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks > >> >>>> Swami > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. > >> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM > >> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, > >> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 > >> >>>>>> API support. > >> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one > >> >>>>>> planned to work on. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open > >> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already > >> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on > >> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather > >> >>>>> later. > >> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a > >> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the > >> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have > >> >>>>> that first. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Yehuda > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thanks > >> >>>>>> Swami > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? > >> >>>>>>>> or > >> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or > >> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? > >> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> sage > >> >>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > >> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >> >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 15:38 ` Sage Weil @ 2014-09-19 15:53 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-24 14:03 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-19 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Yehuda Sadeh, ceph-devel >What do you mean by "RRS storage-low cost storage"? My read of the RRS >numbers is that they simply have a different tier of S3 that runs fewer >replicas and (probably) cheaper disks. In radosgw-land, this would just >be a different rados pool with 2x replicas and (probably) a CRUSH rule >mapping it to different hardware (with bigger and/or cheaper disks). Thats correct. If we could do the with a different rados pool using 2x replicas along with CURSH mapping it to different h/w (with bigger and cheaper disks) , then its same as RRS support in AWS. >> >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >> >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >> >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >> >> OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. >There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real >detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to S3. >Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the >ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any >references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in >the ticket. Sure, I will create a new feature ticket and add the needful information there. Thanks Swami On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> Thanks for quick reply. >> >> >what you mean. >> >For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >> >reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >> >the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >> >buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >> >make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >> >> Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like >> reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost >> (instead of >> standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could >> similarly in ceph too. > > What do you mean by "RRS storage-low cost storage"? My read of the RRS > numbers is that they simply have a different tier of S3 that runs fewer > replicas and (probably) cheaper disks. In radosgw-land, this would just > be a different rados pool with 2x replicas and (probably) a CRUSH rule > mapping it to different hardware (with bigger and/or cheaper disks). > >> >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >> >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >> >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >> >> OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. > > There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real > detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to > S3. > > Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the > ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any > references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in > the ticket. > >> >When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >> >this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >> >first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >> >this right away... >> >> Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we >> are happy support you here. > > Great to hear! > > Thanks- > sage > > >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >> >> Hi Sage, >> >> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object >> >> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log >> >> file etc.? >> > >> > Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's >> > what you mean. >> > >> > For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >> > reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >> > the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >> > buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >> > make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >> > >> > What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >> > individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >> > architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >> > >> > When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >> > this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >> > first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >> > this right away... >> > >> > sage >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Swami >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi , >> >> > >> >> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >> >> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >> >> > >> >> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >> >> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >> >> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >> >> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >> >> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >> >> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >> >> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >> >> > >> >> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >> >> > storage and delete from that storage? >> >> > >> >> > 2. To support the object notifications: >> >> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >> >> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >> >> > object storage, >> >> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >> >> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >> >> > >> >> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> >> > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Yehuda, >> >> >> >> >> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >> >> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >> >> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >> >> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >> >> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >> >> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >> >> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >> >> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >> >> >> >> >> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >> >> >> storage and delete from that storage? >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. To support the object notifications: >> >> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >> >> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >> >> >> object storage, >> >> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >> >> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >> >> >> >> >> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Swami >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Bucket lifecycle: >> >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Bucket notification: >> >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> >> >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >> >> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >> >> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >> >> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >> >> >>>> start working on this asap. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks >> >> >>>> Swami >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> >> >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >> >> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >> >> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >> >> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >> >> >>>>>> API support. >> >> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >> >> >>>>>> planned to work on. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >> >> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >> >> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >> >> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >> >> >>>>> later. >> >> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >> >> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >> >> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >> >> >>>>> that first. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Yehuda >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Thanks >> >> >>>>>> Swami >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >> >> >>>>>>>> or >> >> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >> >> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >> >> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> sage >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> >> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> >> >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 15:53 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-24 14:03 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-24 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sage Weil; +Cc: Yehuda Sadeh, ceph-devel >>There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real >>detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to S3. >>Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the >>ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any >>references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in >>the ticket. >Sure, I will create a new feature ticket and add the needful information there. Created a new ticket: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/9581 Thanks Swami On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:23 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>What do you mean by "RRS storage-low cost storage"? My read of the RRS >>numbers is that they simply have a different tier of S3 that runs fewer >>replicas and (probably) cheaper disks. In radosgw-land, this would just >>be a different rados pool with 2x replicas and (probably) a CRUSH rule >>mapping it to different hardware (with bigger and/or cheaper disks). > > Thats correct. If we could do the with a different rados pool using > 2x replicas along with CURSH > mapping it to different h/w (with bigger and cheaper disks) , then its > same as RRS support in AWS. > > >>> >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>> >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>> >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >>> >>> OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. > >>There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real >>detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to S3. > >>Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the >>ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any >>references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in >>the ticket. > > > Sure, I will create a new feature ticket and add the needful information there. > > Thanks > Swami > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>> Hi Sage, >>> Thanks for quick reply. >>> >>> >what you mean. >>> >For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >>> >reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >>> >the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >>> >buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >>> >make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >>> >>> Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like >>> reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost >>> (instead of >>> standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could >>> similarly in ceph too. >> >> What do you mean by "RRS storage-low cost storage"? My read of the RRS >> numbers is that they simply have a different tier of S3 that runs fewer >> replicas and (probably) cheaper disks. In radosgw-land, this would just >> be a different rados pool with 2x replicas and (probably) a CRUSH rule >> mapping it to different hardware (with bigger and/or cheaper disks). >> >>> >What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>> >individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>> >architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >>> >>> OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. >> >> There is the main #4099 issue for object expiration, but there is no real >> detail there. The plan is (as always) to have equivalent functionality to >> S3. >> >> Do you mind creating a new feature ticket that specifically references the >> ability to move objects to a second storage tier based on policy? Any >> references to AWS docs about the API or functionality would be helpful in >> the ticket. >> >>> >When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >>> >this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >>> >first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >>> >this right away... >>> >>> Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we >>> are happy support you here. >> >> Great to hear! >> >> Thanks- >> sage >> >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Swami >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>> >> Hi Sage, >>> >> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object >>> >> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log >>> >> file etc.? >>> > >>> > Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's >>> > what you mean. >>> > >>> > For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >>> > reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >>> > the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >>> > buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >>> > make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >>> > >>> > What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>> > individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>> > architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >>> > >>> > When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >>> > this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >>> > first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >>> > this right away... >>> > >>> > sage >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> Swami >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > Hi , >>> >> > >>> >> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >>> >> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >>> >> > >>> >> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >>> >> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >>> >> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >>> >> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >>> >> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >>> >> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >>> >> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >>> >> > >>> >> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >>> >> > storage and delete from that storage? >>> >> > >>> >> > 2. To support the object notifications: >>> >> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >>> >> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >>> >> > object storage, >>> >> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >>> >> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >>> >> > >>> >> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> >> > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> Hi Yehuda, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >>> >> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >>> >> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >>> >> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >>> >> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >>> >> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >>> >> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >>> >> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >>> >> >> storage and delete from that storage? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2. To support the object notifications: >>> >> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >>> >> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >>> >> >> object storage, >>> >> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >>> >> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks >>> >> >> Swami >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> Bucket lifecycle: >>> >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Bucket notification: >>> >> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> >> >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >>> >> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >>> >> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >>> >> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >>> >> >>>> start working on this asap. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> Thanks >>> >> >>>> Swami >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> >> >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>> >> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>> >> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>> >> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>> >> >>>>>> API support. >>> >> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>> >> >>>>>> planned to work on. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>> >> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>> >> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>> >> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>> >> >>>>> later. >>> >> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>> >> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>> >> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>> >> >>>>> that first. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Yehuda >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Thanks >>> >> >>>>>> Swami >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>> >> >>>>>>>> or >>> >> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>> >> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>> >> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> sage >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> >> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> >> >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> -- >>> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 15:32 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 15:38 ` Sage Weil @ 2014-09-19 16:45 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-09-22 11:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-09-19 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:32 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sage, > Thanks for quick reply. > >>Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's > > No. I meant that - Ceph interaction with a glacier and RRS type of > storages along with currently used OSD (or standard storage). > >>what you mean. >>For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >>reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >>the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >>buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >>make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. > > Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like > reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost > (instead of > standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could > similarly in ceph too. You can use multiple placement targets and can specify on bucket creation which placement target to use. At this time we don't support the exact S3 reduced redundancy fields, although it should be pretty easy to add. > >>What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. > > OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. I think #8929 would cover it. Yehuda > >>When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >>this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >>first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >>this right away... > > Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we > are happy support you here. > > Thanks > Swami > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>> Hi Sage, >>> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object >>> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log >>> file etc.? >> >> Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's >> what you mean. >> >> For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >> reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >> the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >> buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >> make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >> >> What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >> individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >> architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >> >> When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >> this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >> first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >> this right away... >> >> sage >> >> >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Swami >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Hi , >>> > >>> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >>> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >>> > >>> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >>> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >>> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >>> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >>> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >>> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >>> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >>> > >>> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >>> > storage and delete from that storage? >>> > >>> > 2. To support the object notifications: >>> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >>> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >>> > object storage, >>> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >>> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >>> > >>> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > >>> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> Hi Yehuda, >>> >> >>> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >>> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >>> >> >>> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >>> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >>> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >>> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >>> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >>> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >>> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >>> >> >>> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >>> >> storage and delete from that storage? >>> >> >>> >> 2. To support the object notifications: >>> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >>> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >>> >> object storage, >>> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >>> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >>> >> >>> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> Swami >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Bucket lifecycle: >>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >>> >>> >>> >>> Bucket notification: >>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >>> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >>> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >>> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >>> >>>> start working on this asap. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks >>> >>>> Swami >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>> >>>>>> API support. >>> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>> >>>>>> planned to work on. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>> >>>>> later. >>> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>> >>>>> that first. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Yehuda >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks >>> >>>>>> Swami >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>> >>>>>>>> or >>> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> sage >>> >>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-09-19 16:45 ` Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-09-22 11:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-09-22 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel >> Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like >> reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost >> (instead of >> standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could >> similarly in ceph too. >You can use multiple placement targets and can specify on bucket >creation which placement target to use. At this time we don't support >the exact S3 reduced redundancy fields, although it should be pretty >easy to add. OK. Could you please guide us to implement the above. >>>What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>>individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>>architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >> >> OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. >I think #8929 would cover it. The above issue for bucket lifecyle, but we are storing the object/buckets on a separate disk like RRS type. I think, its needed to support an object to be stored based on the option (default on standard storage). Thanks Swami On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:32 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> Thanks for quick reply. >> >>>Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's >> >> No. I meant that - Ceph interaction with a glacier and RRS type of >> storages along with currently used OSD (or standard storage). >> >>>what you mean. >>>For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >>>reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >>>the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >>>buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >>>make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >> >> Yes, we can confiure ceph to use 2x replicas, which will look like >> reduced redundancy, but AWS uses a separate RRS storage-low cost >> (instead of >> standard) storage for this purpose. I am checking, if we could >> similarly in ceph too. > > You can use multiple placement targets and can specify on bucket > creation which placement target to use. At this time we don't support > the exact S3 reduced redundancy fields, although it should be pretty > easy to add. > >> >>>What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>>individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>>architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >> >> OK. Do we have the issue id for the above? Else, we can file one. Please advise. > > I think #8929 would cover it. > > Yehuda > >> >>>When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >>>this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >>>first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >>>this right away... >> >> Great to know this. Even we are keen with S3 support in Ceph and we >> are happy support you here. >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>> Hi Sage, >>>> Could you please advise, if Ceph support the low cost object >>>> storages(like Amazon Glacier or RRS) for archiving objects like log >>>> file etc.? >>> >>> Ceph doesn't interact at all with AWS services like Glacier, if that's >>> what you mean. >>> >>> For RRS, though, I assume you mean the ability to create buckets with >>> reduced redundancy with radosgw? That is supported, although not quite >>> the way AWS does it. You can create different pools that back RGW >>> buckets, and each bucket is stored in one of those pools. So you could >>> make one of them 2x instead of 3x, or use an erasure code of your choice. >>> >>> What isn't currently supported is the ability to reduce the redundancy of >>> individual objects in a bucket. I don't think there is anything >>> architecturally preventing that, but it is not implemented or supported. >>> >>> When we look at the S3 archival features in more detail (soon!) I'm sure >>> this will come up! The current plan is to address object versioning >>> first. That is, unless a developer surfaces who wants to start hacking on >>> this right away... >>> >>> sage >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Swami >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > Hi , >>>> > >>>> > Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >>>> > lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >>>> > >>>> > 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >>>> > moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >>>> > For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >>>> > 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >>>> > cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >>>> > 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >>>> > object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >>>> > >>>> > Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >>>> > storage and delete from that storage? >>>> > >>>> > 2. To support the object notifications: >>>> > - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >>>> > with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >>>> > object storage, >>>> > There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >>>> > of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >>>> > >>>> > Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >>>> > >>>> > Thanks >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:00 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>>> > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> Hi Yehuda, >>>> >> >>>> >> Could you please check and clarify the below question on object >>>> >> lifecycle and notification S3 APIs support: >>>> >> >>>> >> 1. To support the bucket lifecycle - we need to support the >>>> >> moving/deleting the objects/buckets based lifecycle settings. >>>> >> For ex: If an object lifecyle set as below: >>>> >> 1. Archive it after 10 days - means move this object to low >>>> >> cost object storage after 10 days of the creation date. >>>> >> 2. Remove this object after 90days - mean remove this >>>> >> object from the low cost object after 90days of creation date. >>>> >> >>>> >> Q1- Does the ceph support the above concept like moving to low cost >>>> >> storage and delete from that storage? >>>> >> >>>> >> 2. To support the object notifications: >>>> >> - First there should be low cost and high availability storage >>>> >> with single replica only. If an object created with this type of >>>> >> object storage, >>>> >> There could be chances that object could lose, so if an object >>>> >> of this type of storage lost, set the notifications. >>>> >> >>>> >> Q2- Does Ceph support low cost and high availability storage type? >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks >>>> >> Swami >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>> Bucket lifecycle: >>>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8929 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Bucket notification: >>>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8956 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>>> >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Good no know the details. Can you please share the issue ID for bucket >>>> >>>> lifecycle? My team also could start help here. >>>> >>>> Regarding the notification - Do we have the issue ID? >>>> >>>> Yes, the object versioning will be backlog one - I strongly feel we >>>> >>>> start working on this asap. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Swami >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>>> >>>>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>>> >>>>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>>> >>>>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>>> >>>>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>>> >>>>>> API support. >>>> >>>>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>>> >>>>>> planned to work on. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>>> >>>>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>>> >>>>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>>> >>>>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>>> >>>>> later. >>>> >>>>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>>> >>>>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>>> >>>>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>>> >>>>> that first. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Yehuda >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>> >>>>>> Swami >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>> >>>>>>>> or >>>> >>>>>>>> Any working on this? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>> >>>>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>> >>>>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> sage >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>> >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>>> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-25 18:01 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-07-27 7:54 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-04 11:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-12 16:58 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-04 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Hi Yehuda, I tried to test the get bucket location API, but got an error as below. Is this known issue? Could you please confirm. Thanks,Swami ==== In [14]: b.get_location() send: 'GET /some-bucket-from-libs3/? location HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: 192.168.122.61\r\nAccept-Encoding: identity\r\nDate: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:22 GMT\r\nContent-Length: 0\r\nAuthorization: AWS cec157b52253463b91547e0a73369960:sT5aw9yXantfAafRn/6x+IgI1pk=\r\nUser-Agent: Boto/2.20.1 Python/2.7.6 Linux/3.13.0-29-generic\r\n\r\n' reply: '' send: 'GET /some-bucket-from-libs3/?location HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: 192.168.122.61\r\nAccept-Encoding: identity\r\nDate: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:22 GMT\r\nContent-Length: 0\r\nAuthorization: AWS cec157b52253463b91547e0a73369960:sT5aw9yXantfAafRn/6x+IgI1pk=\r\nUser-Agent: Boto/2.20.1 Python/2.7.6 Linux/3.13.0-29-generic\r\n\r\n' reply: 'HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n' header: Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:23 GMT header: Server: Apache/2.4.7 (Ubuntu) header: Vary: Accept-Encoding header: Transfer-Encoding: chunked header: Content-Type: application/xml --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last) <ipython-input-14-7c597523523d> in <module>() ----> 1 b.get_location() /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/boto/s3/bucket.pyc in get_location(self) 1005 h = handler.XmlHandler(rs, self) 1006 xml.sax.parseString(body, h) -> 1007 return rs.LocationConstraint 1008 else: 1009 raise self.connection.provider.storage_response_error( AttributeError: 'ResultSet' object has no attribute 'LocationConstraint' === On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for quick reply. >> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >> API support. >> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >> planned to work on. > > > I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open > for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already > (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on > our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather > later. > With regard to object notification, it'll require having a > notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the > gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have > that first. > > Yehuda > >> >> Thanks >> Swami >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>> >>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>> >>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>> or >>>> Any working on this? >>> >>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>> >>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>> >>> sage >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-08-04 11:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-12 16:58 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-12 17:06 ` Yehuda Sadeh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-12 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Hi Yehuda, Can I please get any suggestion on the "get bucket_location" API error? Please share any info, which can help us to debug more here. Thanks Swami On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yehuda, > I tried to test the get bucket location API, but got an error as > below. Is this known issue? Could you please confirm. Thanks,Swami > ==== > In [14]: b.get_location() > send: 'GET /some-bucket-from-libs3/? > location HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: 192.168.122.61\r\nAccept-Encoding: > identity\r\nDate: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:22 GMT\r\nContent-Length: > 0\r\nAuthorization: AWS > cec157b52253463b91547e0a73369960:sT5aw9yXantfAafRn/6x+IgI1pk=\r\nUser-Agent: > Boto/2.20.1 Python/2.7.6 Linux/3.13.0-29-generic\r\n\r\n' > reply: '' > send: 'GET /some-bucket-from-libs3/?location HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: > 192.168.122.61\r\nAccept-Encoding: identity\r\nDate: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 > 12:02:22 GMT\r\nContent-Length: 0\r\nAuthorization: AWS > cec157b52253463b91547e0a73369960:sT5aw9yXantfAafRn/6x+IgI1pk=\r\nUser-Agent: > Boto/2.20.1 Python/2.7.6 Linux/3.13.0-29-generic\r\n\r\n' > reply: 'HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n' > header: Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:23 GMT > header: Server: Apache/2.4.7 (Ubuntu) > header: Vary: Accept-Encoding > header: Transfer-Encoding: chunked > header: Content-Type: application/xml > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last) > <ipython-input-14-7c597523523d> in <module>() > ----> 1 b.get_location() > > /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/boto/s3/bucket.pyc in get_location(self) > 1005 h = handler.XmlHandler(rs, self) > 1006 xml.sax.parseString(body, h) > -> 1007 return rs.LocationConstraint > 1008 else: > 1009 raise self.connection.provider.storage_response_error( > > AttributeError: 'ResultSet' object has no attribute 'LocationConstraint' > === > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Thanks for quick reply. >>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>> API support. >>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>> planned to work on. >> >> >> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >> later. >> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >> that first. >> >> Yehuda >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Swami >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>> >>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>> >>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>> or >>>>> Any working on this? >>>> >>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>> >>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>> >>>> sage >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-08-12 16:58 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-12 17:06 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-08-12 17:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-26 13:59 ` Abhishek L 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-08-12 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: M Ranga Swami Reddy; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel At the moment we don't support this api call. Adding it should be pretty easy, and it's definitely something that could be done with the help of a willing community member. Yehuda On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:58 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yehuda, > Can I please get any suggestion on the "get bucket_location" API > error? Please share any info, which can help us to debug more here. > > Thanks > Swami > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, M Ranga Swami Reddy > <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Yehuda, >> I tried to test the get bucket location API, but got an error as >> below. Is this known issue? Could you please confirm. Thanks,Swami >> ==== >> In [14]: b.get_location() >> send: 'GET /some-bucket-from-libs3/? >> location HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: 192.168.122.61\r\nAccept-Encoding: >> identity\r\nDate: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:22 GMT\r\nContent-Length: >> 0\r\nAuthorization: AWS >> cec157b52253463b91547e0a73369960:sT5aw9yXantfAafRn/6x+IgI1pk=\r\nUser-Agent: >> Boto/2.20.1 Python/2.7.6 Linux/3.13.0-29-generic\r\n\r\n' >> reply: '' >> send: 'GET /some-bucket-from-libs3/?location HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: >> 192.168.122.61\r\nAccept-Encoding: identity\r\nDate: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 >> 12:02:22 GMT\r\nContent-Length: 0\r\nAuthorization: AWS >> cec157b52253463b91547e0a73369960:sT5aw9yXantfAafRn/6x+IgI1pk=\r\nUser-Agent: >> Boto/2.20.1 Python/2.7.6 Linux/3.13.0-29-generic\r\n\r\n' >> reply: 'HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n' >> header: Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:02:23 GMT >> header: Server: Apache/2.4.7 (Ubuntu) >> header: Vary: Accept-Encoding >> header: Transfer-Encoding: chunked >> header: Content-Type: application/xml >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last) >> <ipython-input-14-7c597523523d> in <module>() >> ----> 1 b.get_location() >> >> /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/boto/s3/bucket.pyc in get_location(self) >> 1005 h = handler.XmlHandler(rs, self) >> 1006 xml.sax.parseString(body, h) >> -> 1007 return rs.LocationConstraint >> 1008 else: >> 1009 raise self.connection.provider.storage_response_error( >> >> AttributeError: 'ResultSet' object has no attribute 'LocationConstraint' >> === >> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, M Ranga Swami Reddy >>> <swamireddy@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks for quick reply. >>>> Yes, versioned object - missing in ceph ATM >>>> Iam looking for: bucket lifecylce (get/put/delete), bucket location, >>>> put object notification and object restore (ie versioned object) S3 >>>> API support. >>>> Please let me now any of the above work is in progress or some one >>>> planned to work on. >>> >>> >>> I opened an issue for bucket lifecycle (we already had an issue open >>> for object expiration though). We do have bucket location already >>> (part of the multi-region feature). Object versioning is definitely on >>> our backlog and one that we'll hopefully implement sooner rather >>> later. >>> With regard to object notification, it'll require having a >>> notification service which is a bit out of the scope. Integrating the >>> gateway with such a service whouldn't be hard, but we'll need to have >>> that first. >>> >>> Yehuda >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Swami >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: >>>>>> Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. >>>>>> >>>>>> Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? >>>>>> or >>>>>> Any working on this? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or >>>>> up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. >>>>> >>>>> Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? >>>>> That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... >>>>> >>>>> sage >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-08-12 17:06 ` Yehuda Sadeh @ 2014-08-12 17:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-26 13:59 ` Abhishek L 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-12 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: Sage Weil, ceph-devel Thanks Yehuda. I am testing the S3 APIs suing the openstack+ceph. Could able test a couple of APIs like put/get/delete bucket (using the boto python libraries). When I tried for get bucket location I got an error mentioned in my previous email. And explored the ceph source code and not able see the appropriate code/function for "get_bucket_location". But as per the previous email discuss, the bucket_location supported as part multi-region support. Let me know, if I miss something here. Thanks Swami ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-08-12 17:06 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-08-12 17:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-08-26 13:59 ` Abhishek L 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Abhishek L @ 2014-08-26 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yehuda Sadeh; +Cc: M Ranga Swami Reddy, Sage Weil, ceph-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --] Yehuda Sadeh writes: > At the moment we don't support this api call. Adding it should be > pretty easy, and it's definitely something that could be done with the > help of a willing community member. > > Yehuda > Hi, I have a basic implementation for S3 get bucket location, which returns the region of the bucket.[1] For the "default" region it returns the empty string similiar to s3 (which returns empty string for the "default" us-east region). Please let me know whether this is acceptable (or if I have missed something obvious), and what else needs to be done in order to get this in. Once I have a review on code I'll try to update the docs & examples regarding this call. [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/2329 Thanks -- Abhishek [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support 2014-07-25 15:49 ` Sage Weil 2014-07-25 17:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy @ 2014-07-27 0:41 ` Robin H. Johnson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Robin H. Johnson @ 2014-07-27 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sage Weil; +Cc: M Ranga Swami Reddy, ceph-devel On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 08:49:25AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, M Ranga Swami Reddy wrote: > > Hi Team: As per the ceph document a few S3 APIs compatibility not supported. > > > > Link: http://ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/ > > > > Is there plan to support the ?n supported item in the above table? > > or > > Any working on this? > > Yes. Unfortunately this table isn't particularly detailed or accurate or > up to date. The main gap, I think, is versioned objects. > > Are there specfiic parts of the S3 API that are missing that you need? > That sort of info is very helpful for prioritizing effort... Fine-grained object policies would be useful here, w/ users+groups brought in from keystone. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-24 14:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <CANA9Uk55UZXtKzS=urk3Q+KY=DoWoTaCRf=rKiEtjt9y7FYw7A@mail.gmail.com> 2014-07-25 13:45 ` Fwd: S3 API Compatibility support M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-25 15:49 ` Sage Weil 2014-07-25 17:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-25 18:01 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-07-27 7:54 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-28 13:05 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-07-28 20:07 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-07-28 20:05 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-09-12 14:30 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-18 12:50 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 5:24 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 5:38 ` Sage Weil 2014-09-19 15:32 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 15:38 ` Sage Weil 2014-09-19 15:53 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-24 14:03 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-09-19 16:45 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-09-22 11:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-04 11:14 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-12 16:58 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-12 17:06 ` Yehuda Sadeh 2014-08-12 17:17 ` M Ranga Swami Reddy 2014-08-26 13:59 ` Abhishek L 2014-07-27 0:41 ` Robin H. Johnson
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.