Internal error when no s3 binding #613
Labels
No Label
AdminAPI
Bug
Check AWS
CI
Correctness
Critical
Documentation
Ideas
Improvement
Low priority
Newcomer
Performance
S3 Compatibility
Testing
Usability
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: Deuxfleurs/garage#613
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Hi, first thank you for this amazing tool!
I am planning to deploy it at Rhizome FAI (student FFDN FAI in Compiègne) for our backup.
I just installed garage on a fresh Debian 12 install, following systemd tutorial.
My
/etc/garage.toml
is as follows:Note that I did not put the
[s3_api]
section in a first place, as I did not want to expose it directly (but do it in a gateway node behind a reverse proxy). However, to start the server, I had to add this section ands3_region
, the configuration being not valid without.With this file, the service starts correctly. However, when trying to
garage status
, I have the following error:with following
systemctl status garage
:By adding
api_bind_addr = "127.0.0.1:3900"
to the garage config file, everything is fine ad I get the following expected return:Questions:
Please correct me if I am miss-understanding something
garage status
?With my understanding of the docs, I plan to do the following:
Does it seems to be a working idea?
Thank you again !
There is no real distinction in the codebase between a storage node and a gateway - this only really exists at the garage layout layer. And noone has gotten round to making the API endpoint optional.
They only use the RPC endpoint to communicate.
This is all perfectly doable - just use nftables with a default deny policy for your inbound firewall to block access to the other ports.
The error you are getting when starting without binding the S3 API port is not normal, it's probably a bug. Thanks for the detailed report, I'll look into it soon.