Bug 2166566
| Summary: | Unclear error message when rgw_max_attr_size is small (Response 400) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage | Reporter: | Itzik Brown <itbrown> | ||||
| Component: | RGW | Assignee: | Marcus Watts <mwatts> | ||||
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Madhavi Kasturi <mkasturi> | ||||
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||
| Version: | 4.0 | CC: | ceph-eng-bugs, cephqe-warriors, fpantano, gfidente, mbenjamin, mwatts, sostapov | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | 6.1z2 | ||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | Type: | Bug | |||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Itzik Brown
2023-02-02 07:52:53 UTC
The problems that I faced is caused by a small value of rgw_max_attr_size (It was set to 256) When setting it to a bigger value (500) it works for me. The bug can be reproduced by setting the value to 100 In the case of Openstack: sudo cephadm shell -- ceph config set global rgw_max_attr_size 500 The upload an object with a name >100 e.g. $ swift upload ostest-hdlvf-image-registry-btahhbrrceemevxwkkastuawjjxyqlfmub -S 107374182 myimg1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111 Marcus, as mentioned in https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OCPBUGS-6615 , it appears that "rgw_max_attr_size" is also limiting the object name; is that on purpose? FWIW, Swift appears to be using a different config for that. Missed the window for 6.1 z1. Retargeting to 6.1 z2. |