undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstevehawk7y ago0 comments

This is unfortunately the norm. Like when AWS S3 went down (but couldn't update its own status images because they're in S3 and we all laughed) and along with it went Alexa, lambda, and every other service dependent on S3.

0 comments

jorblumesea7y ago

S3 is really the one of the few services on aws that can do that unfortunately. It has no concept of zone/region, it's truly global. To me it seems like a serious design flaw, as everything else in aws is striped by region, but not sure why exactly it was built like that.

edit:

nvm s3 has regions, it's the bucket names that are global.

dodobirdlord7y ago

Buckets are globally addressable because they planned for each S3 bucket + object key to have an associated URL (actually several), and URLs are a global namespace.

http(s)://<bucket>.s3.amazonaws.com/<object> http(s)://s3.amazonaws.com/<bucket>/<object>

jorblumesea7y ago

urls would have to be global, but why buckets themselves? It seems like a many to one relationship would easily be possible.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsstevehawk7y ago0 comments

0 comments

jorblumesea7y ago

edit:

nvm s3 has regions, it's the bucket names that are global.

dodobirdlord7y ago

Buckets are globally addressable because they planned for each S3 bucket + object key to have an associated URL (actually several), and URLs are a global namespace.

http(s)://<bucket>.s3.amazonaws.com/<object> http(s)://s3.amazonaws.com/<bucket>/<object>

jorblumesea7y ago

urls would have to be global, but why buckets themselves? It seems like a many to one relationship would easily be possible.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse