We are experiencing problems with files produced by Java code which are written locally and then copied by the Data Pipeline to S3. The error mentions file size.
I would have thought that if multipart uploads is required, then the Pipeline would figure that out. I wonder if there is a way of configuring the Pipeline so that it indeed uses multipart uploading. Because otherwise the current Java code which is agnostic about S3 has to write directly to S3 or has to do what it used to and then use multipart uploading -- in fact, I would think the code would just directly write to S3 and not worry about uploading.
Can anyone tell me if Pipelines can use multipart uploading and if not, can you suggest whether the correct approach is to have the program write directly to S3 or to continue to write to local storage and then perhaps have a separate program be invoked within the same Pipeline which will do the multipart uploading?
The answer, based on AWS support, is that indeed 5 gig files can't be uploaded directly to S3. And there is no way currently for a Data Pipeline to say, "You are trying to upload a large file, so I will do something special to handle this." It simply fails.
This may change in the future.
Data Pipeline CopyActivity does not support files larger than 4GB. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/datapipeline/latest/DeveloperGuide/dp-object-copyactivity.html
This is below the 5GB limit imposed by S3 for each file-part put.
You need to write your own script wrapping AWS CLI or S3cmd (older). This script may be executed as a shell activity.
Writing directly to S3 may be an issue as S3 does not support append operations - unless you can somehow write multiple smaller objects in a folder.
Related
I have a project in AWS to insert data from some files, which will be in S3, to Redshift. The point is that the ETL has to be scheduled each day to find new files in S3 and then check if those files are correct. However, this has to be done with custom code as the files can have different formats depending of their kind, provider, etc.
I see that AWS Glue allows to schedule, crawl and do the ETL. However I'm lost at how to one can create its own code for the ETL and parse the files to check the correctness before ending up doing the copy instruction from S3 to Redshift. Do you know if that can be done and how?
Another issue is that if the correctness is OK then, the system should upload the data from S3 to a web via some API. But if it's not the file should be left into an ftp email. Here again, do you know if that can be done as well with the AWS Glue and how?
many thanks!
You can write your glue/spark code, upload it to s3 and create a glue job referring to this script/library. Anything you want to write in python can be done in glue. its just a wrapper around spark which in turn uses python....
I'm using Marklogic 8.0.6 and we also have JSON documents in it. I need to extract a lot of data from Marklogic and store them in AWS S3. We tried to run "mlcp" locally and them upload the data to AWS S3 but it's very slow because it's generating a lot of files.
Our Marklogic platform is already connected to S3 to perform backup. Is there a way to extract a specific database in aws s3 ?
It can be OK for me if I have one big file with one JSON document per line
Thanks,
Romain.
I don't know about getting it to s3, but you can use CORB2 to extract MarkLogic documents to one big file with one JSON document per line.
S3:// is a native file type in MarkLogic. So you can also iterate through all your docs and export them with xdmp:save("s3://...).
If you want to make agrigates, then You may want to marry this idea into Sam's suggestion of CORB2 to control the process and assist in grouping your whole database into multiple manageable aggregate documents. Then use a post-back task to run xdmp-save
Thanks guys for your answers. I do not know about CORB2, this is a great solution! But unfortunately, due to bad I/O I prefer a solution to write directly on s3.
I can use a basic Ml query and dump to s3:// with native connector but I always face memory error even launching with the "spawn" function to generate a background process.
Do you have any xquey example to extract each document on s3 one by one without memory permission?
Thanks
Is there a way to run imagemagick or some other tool on s3 servers to resize the images.
The way I know is first downloading all the image files on my machine and then convert these files and reupload them on s3 server. The problem is the number of file is more than 10000. I don't want to download all the files on my local machine.
Is there a way to convert it on s3 server itself.
look at it: https://github.com/Turistforeningen/node-s3-uploader.
It is a library providing some features for s3 uploading including resizing as you want
Another option is NOT to change the resolution, but to use a service that can convert the images on-the-fly when they are accessed, such as:
Cloudinary
imgix
Also check out the following article on amazon's compute blog.. I found myself here because i had the same question. I think i'm going to implement this in Lambda so i can just specify the size and see if that helps. My problem is i have image files on s3 that are 2MB.. i dont want them at full resolution because I have an app that is retrieving them and it takes a while sometimes for a phone to pull down a 2MB image. But i dont mind storing them at full resolution if i can get a different size just by specifying it in the URL. easy!
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/resize-images-on-the-fly-with-amazon-s3-aws-lambda-and-amazon-api-gateway/
S3 does not, alone, enable arbitrary compute (such as resizing) on the data.
I would suggest looking into AWS-Lambda (available in the AWS console), which will allow you to setup a little program (which they call a Lambda) to run when certain events occur in a S3 bucket. You don't need to setup a VM, you only need to specify a few files, with a particular entry point. The program can be written in a few languages, namely node.js python and java. You'd be able to do it all from the console's web GUI.
Usually those are setup for computing things on new files being uploaded. To trigger the program for files that are already in place on S3, you have to "force" S3 to emit one of the events you can hook into for the files you already have. The list is here. Forcing a S3 copy might be sufficient (copy A to B, delete B), an S3 rename operation (rename A to A.tmp, rename A.tmp to A), and creation of new S3 objects would all work. You essentially just poke your existing files in a way that causes your Lambda to fire. You may also invoke your Lambda manually.
This example shows how to automatically generate a thumbnail out of an image on S3, which you could adapt to your resizing needs and reuse to create your Lambda:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/walkthrough-s3-events-adminuser-create-test-function-create-function.html
Also, here is the walkthrough on how to configure your lambda with certain S3 events:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/walkthrough-s3-events-adminuser.html
The documentation for the Redshift COPY command specifies two ways to choose files to load from S3, you either provide a base path and it loads all the files under that path, or you specify a manifest file with specific files to load.
However in our case, which I imagine is pretty common, the S3 bucket periodically receives new files with more recent data. We'd like to be able to load only the files that haven't already been loaded.
Given that there is a table stl_file_scan that logs all the files that have been loaded from S3, it would be nice to somehow exclude those that have successfully been loaded. This seems like a fairly obvious feature, but I can't find anything in the docs or online about how to do this.
Even the Redshift S3 loading template in AWS Data Pipeline appears to manage this scenario by loading all the data -- new and old -- to a staging table, and then comparing/upserting to the target table. This seems like an insane amount of overhead when we can tell up front from the filenames that a file has already been loaded.
I know we could probably move the files that have already been loaded out of the bucket, however we can't do that, this bucket is the final storage place for another process which is not our own.
The only alternative I can think of is to have some other process running that tracks files that have been successfully loaded to redshift, and then periodically compares that to the s3 bucket to determine the differences, and then writes the manifest file somewhere before triggering the copy process. But what a pain! We'd need a separate ec2 instance to run the process which would have it's own management and operational overhead.
There must be a better way!
This is how I solved the problem,
S3 -- (Lambda Trigger on newly created Logs) -- Lambda -- Firehose -- Redshift
It works at any scale. With more load, more calls to Lambda, more data to firehose and everything taken care automatically.
If there are issues with the format of the file, you can configure dead letter queues, events will be sent there and you can reprocess once you fix lambda.
Here I would like to mention some steps that includes process that how to load data in redshift.
Export local RDBMS data to flat files (Make sure you remove invalid
characters, apply escape sequence during export).
Split files into 10-15 MB each to get optimal performance during
upload and final Data load.
Compress files to *.gz format so you don’t end up with $1000
surprise bill :) .. In my case Text files were compressed 10-20
times.
List all file names to manifest file so when you issue COPY command
to Redshift its treated as one unit of load.
Upload manifest file to Amazon S3 bucket.
Upload local *.gz files to Amazon S3 bucket.
Issue Redshift COPY command with different options.
Schedule file archiving from on-premises and S3 Staging area on AWS.
Capturing Errors, setting up restart ability if something fails
Doing it easy way you can follow this link.
In general compare of loaded files to existing on S3 files is a bad but possible practice. The common "industrial" practice is to use message queue between data producer and data consumer that actually loads the data. Take a look on RabbitMQ vs Amazon SQS and etc..
I would to generate a big file (several TB) with special format using my C# logic and persist it to S3. What is the best way to do this. I can launch a node in EC2 and then write the big file into EBS and then upload the file from the EBS into S3 using the S3 .net Clinent library.
Can I stream the file content as I am generating in my code and directly stream it to S3 until the generation is done specially for such large file and out of memory issues. I can see this code help with stream but it sounds like the stream should have already filled up with. I obviously can not put such a mount of data to memory and also do not want to save it as a file to the disk first.
PutObjectRequest request = new PutObjectRequest();
request.WithBucketName(BUCKET_NAME);
request.WithKey(S3_KEY);
request.WithInputStream(ms);
s3Client.PutObject(request);
What is my best bet to generate this big file ans stream it to S3 as I am generating it?
You certainly could upload any file up to 5 TB that's the limit. I recommend using the streaming and multipart put operations. Uploading a file 1TB could easily fail in the process and you'd have to do it all over, break it up into parts when you're storing it. Also you should be aware that if you need to modify the file you would need to download the file, modify the file and re-upload. If you plan on modifying the file at all i recommend trying to split it up into smaller files.
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UploadingObjects.html