Is there any "standard" way to uniquely identify an S3 blob using a single string?
There are multiple services that support the S3 protocol: AWS, Minio, GCS.
Usually, to access an S3 blob, you must provide endpoint (+region), bucket and key. The 's3://' URIs seem to only contain bucket and key. Is there any standard that also includes the endpoint?
At least for GCS there is no standard on how you should name the objects that are uploaded to the bucket, they just need to follow the format rules mentioned here.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in this video, there are some tricks that you can follow in order to have a better performance on the read/write operations in a bucket through object naming.
If you have a bit more time, you can also check this other video which goes more in depth on how GCS works as well as performance an reliability tips.
Related
Which DB is better for storing images in a photo-sharing application?
We don't recommend storing images directly in Cassandra. Most companies (they're household names you'd know very well and likely using their services) store images/videos/media on an object store like AWS S3 and Google Cloud Store.
Only the metadata of the media are stored in Cassandra for very fast retrieval -- S3 URL/URI, user info, media info, etc.
The advantage of using Cassandra is that it can be deployed to a hybrid combination of public clouds so you're not tied to one vendor. Being able to distribute your Cassandra nodes across clouds means that you can get as close as possible to your users. Cheers!
AWS S3 is an object storage service that works very well for unstructured data. It offers infinite store where the size of an object is restricted to 5TB. S3 is suitable for storing large objects.
DynamoDB is a NoSQL, low latency database which is suitable for semi-structured data. DynamoDB uses cases are usually where we want to store large number of small records and have a millisecond latency, DynamoDB record size limit is 400KB
For a photosharing application, you need Both S3 and DynamoDB. S3 acts as a storage, DynamoDB is your Database which lists all galleries, files, timestamps, captions, users etc
You can store photos in Amazon S3, but photo's metadata in someother database.
Amazon S3 well suited for any objects for large size as well.
What are options to create solution based on the AWS native platform to be able to full text search in an amazon s3 bucket/s.
We have process that will be storing daily 100+ of text files ranging from 100K to 150 MB that we need to retain for 1-2 years. We want to have an ability to be able to full text search.
The Amazon S3 management console does not search inside objects. It is purely filtering on the filename ("Key") of the objects in the bucket.
If you wish to search inside objects, then you will need to implement other services such as Amazon Kendra or Elasticsearch that will read and index objects.
Amazon S3 is a "Simple Storage Service". It provides highly scalable and reliable storage, but any higher-level functions such as search need to be implemented "on top" of S3. Just think of S3 as a huge, amazingly powerful hard disk that is connected to the Internet. (Sort of.)
We currently serve up downloadable content (mp3, pdf, mp4, zip files, etc) in a single S3 bucket called media.domainname.com.
We have a separate bucket that stores all the various video encodings for our iOS app: app.domainname.com.
We're investigating moving all of our images to S3 as well in order to ease the server load and prep us for moving to a load balanced server setup.
That said, is it better/more efficient to move our images to a separate bucket i.e., images.domainname.com? Or is it a better practice to create an images subfolder in the media bucket, like media.domainname.com/images?
What are the pros/cons of either method?
The primary benefits of using separate buckets are that you can assign separate policies to each:
Reduced redundancy to save on costs.
Versioning of changed contents.
Automatic archival to Glacier
Separate permissions
The only downside that I can think of is that it means you'd have to manage all these things separately across multiple buckets.
Hi is there any version of amazon web services provides unlimited buckets?
No. From the S3 documentation:
Each AWS account can own up to 100 buckets at a time.
S3 buckets are expensive (in terms of resources) to create and destroy:
The high availability engineering of Amazon S3 is focused on get, put, list, and delete operations. Because bucket operations work against a centralized, global resource space, it is not appropriate to make bucket create or delete calls on the high availability code path of your application. It is better to create or delete buckets in a separate initialization or setup routine that you run less often.
There's also no good reason to use lots of buckets:
There is no limit to the number of objects that can be stored in a bucket and no variation in performance whether you use many buckets or just a few. You can store all of your objects in a single bucket, or you can organize them across several buckets.
You want a separate space for each of your users to put things. Fine: create a single bucket and give your user-specific information a <user_id>/ prefix. Better yet, put it in users/<user_id>/, so you can use the same bucket for other non-user-specific things later, or change naming schemes, or anything else you might want.
ListObjects accepts a prefix parameter (users/<user_id>/), and has special provisions for hierarchical keys that might be relevant.
Will is correct. For cases where you can really prove a decent use-case, I'm would imagine that AWS would consider bumping your quota (as they will do for most any service). I wouldn't be surprised if particular users have 200-300 buckets or more, but not without justifying it on good grounds to AWS.
With that said, I cannot find any S3 Quota Increase form alongside the other quota increase forms.
I'm setting up my client with a system that allows users to upload a video or two. These videos will be stored on Amazon S3, which I've not used before. I'm unsure about buckets, and what they represent. Do you think I would have a single bucket for my application, a bucket per user or a bucket per file?
If I were to just have the one bucket, presumably I'd have to have really long, illogical file names to prevent a file name clash.
There is no limit to the amount of objects you can store in a bucket, so generally you would have a single bucket per application, or even across multiple applications. Bucket names have to be globally unique across S3 so it would certainly be impossible to manage a bucket per object. A bucket per user would also be difficult if you had more than a handful of users.
For more background on buckets you can try reading Working with Amazon S3 Buckets
Your application should generate unique keys for objects you are adding to the bucket. Try and avoid numeric ascending ids, as these are considered inefficient. Simply reversing a numeric id can usually make an effective object key. See Amazon S3 Performance Tips & Tricks for a more detailed explanation.