Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rgw: add bucket request payment feature usage statistics integration #6656

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Mar 10, 2016

Conversation

jmunhoz
Copy link
Contributor

@jmunhoz jmunhoz commented Nov 19, 2015

Add usage statistics support for the bucket request payment feature.

Fixes: #13834

Signed-off-by: Javier M. Mellid jmunhoz@igalia.com

@jmunhoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmunhoz commented Nov 19, 2015

@yehudasa usage log example covering different cases available at:

http://tracker.ceph.com/attachments/download/2086/bpr-ul-example-001.txt

@jmunhoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmunhoz commented Dec 16, 2015

@yehudasa Not sure if I am understanding rightly. It is expected breaking the compatibility with older entries due to indexation change (by bucket user instead of bucket owner with the new code). Would it make sense some kind of compatibility with the old entries?

@yehudasa
Copy link
Member

@jmunhoz the problem is that it would be incompatible with previously created entries, so people who upgrade will lose their history.

@liewegas
Copy link
Member

@jmunhoz Does Yehuda's comment make sense? Do you need additional guidance?

@jmunhoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmunhoz commented Jan 29, 2016

@liewegas yes, the Yehuda's comment makes a lot of sense. Right now I am working on the AWS4 auth corner cases and the testing coverage with Yehuda but my idea is coming back here asap. I would have to review the code again but I remember I didn't find any clear way to guarantee this compatibility in a quick look. As seen at

http://tracker.ceph.com/attachments/download/2086/bpr-ul-example-001.txt

the approach looks quite different from the current one. Any suggestion to connect both approaches? thanks sage!

@jmunhoz jmunhoz force-pushed the wip-bucket-request-payment-usage-log branch from ac31ae6 to 3848926 Compare February 10, 2016 17:55
@yehudasa
Copy link
Member

@jmunhoz see yehudasa@0bfeef2

it's incomplete, but that's the basic idea. (there's also a needed string -> rgw_user transition that we need to do now that is missing).

@jmunhoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmunhoz commented Feb 26, 2016

@yehudasa I got the idea. I have the code compiling now. I will try to fit the missing bits. thanks!

@jmunhoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmunhoz commented Feb 27, 2016

@yehudasa https://github.com/jmunhoz/ceph/commits/wip-rgw-payer-yehuda

I did some changes over your initial patch although I am not getting the expected result. Operations with payer are added under the owner statistics. All things are compiling and it looks working ok but the way how we insert the puser and its log_add_op datapath. I suspect encoding/decoding could be the reason. Do you see any strange thing in the new encoding/decoding code? I think the transitions between strings and rgw_user are ok.

@yehudasa yehudasa self-assigned this Feb 27, 2016
@yehudasa yehudasa added this to the jewel milestone Feb 27, 2016
@yehudasa
Copy link
Member

Log under the virtual error bucket '-' when bucket not found

Signed-off-by: Javier M. Mellid <jmunhoz@igalia.com>
If the payer matches the owner it shows the owner only.

Signed-off-by: Javier M. Mellid <jmunhoz@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Javier M. Mellid <jmunhoz@igalia.com>
@jmunhoz jmunhoz force-pushed the wip-bucket-request-payment-usage-log branch from 3848926 to 602c61b Compare March 5, 2016 12:56
yehudasa added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 10, 2016
…e-log

rgw: add bucket request payment feature usage statistics integration

Reviewed-by: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com>
@yehudasa yehudasa merged commit 461bd7f into ceph:master Mar 10, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants