Ceph » rgw

https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6493

I took a look at your pull request, overall it looks ok. My question is though whether isn't specifying multiple frontends enough, e.g.:

rgw frontends = civetweb port=80, civetweb port=443s ssl_certificate=/home/dwj/ssl/server.pem

I like the idea of not starting up multiple copies of civetweb. This seems a bit too specialized though. What if I want to listen to 2 http ports?

Yehuda Sadeh wrote:

I took a look at your pull request, overall it looks ok. My question is though whether isn't specifying multiple frontends enough, e.g.:
[...]

This seems like it should work, but the second definition of civetweb segfaults.

Similarly, if i set up another radosgw entry in the ceph.conf - that civetweb segfaults.

Perhaps simply allowing the, character to be escaped, so that that port=80,443s is passed through as-is would be the best solution? i.e. port="80,443s" port=80\,443s

I have a slightly different fix here,
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8339

I think this works better with the code. I used "+" instead of "\," I thought about the latter, but implementing \ meant messing with code that's already used a lot of ways (get_str_list()). Also explaining to people , vs. \, is actually not ideal.

Setting up multiple front-ends does have some attractions - but I think more than just the segfault would have to be fixed. Looks like each frontend gets its own separate thread pool, and we're now finding that thread pool size is a significant tuning variable and production constraint for radosgw.

It would be terrific to have this included ASAP

master PR https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10335