consider changes needed to allow use of Amazon Glacier #2151

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2014-01-14T01:30:34Z

daira commented

2014-01-14 01:30:34 +00:00

See https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/. There would presumably need to be some way to bring a subdirectory tree back into short-term-accessible storage without actually trying to access it. That would be difficult given the way directories are currently implemented, although one option is to only store files in Glacier.

See <https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/>. There would presumably need to be some way to bring a subdirectory tree back into short-term-accessible storage without actually trying to access it. That would be difficult given the way directories are currently implemented, although one option is to only store files in Glacier.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2014-01-14 01:30:34 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the undecided milestone 2014-01-14 01:30:34 +00:00

daira commented

2014-01-14 01:39:24 +00:00

Note that Glacier's pricing model for data retrieval is very complicated, and optimizing the cost of retrieval while still doing it within a reasonable time may be tricky.

Note that [Glacier's pricing model for data retrieval](https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_will_I_be_charged_when_retrieving_large_amounts_of_data_from_Amazon_Glacier) is very complicated, and optimizing the cost of retrieval while still doing it within a reasonable time may be tricky.

exarkun commented

2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

The established line of development on the "cloud backend" branch has been abandoned. This ticket is being closed as part of a batch-ticket cleanup for "cloud backend"-related tickets.

If this is a bug, it is probably genuinely no longer relevant. The "cloud backend" branch is too large and unwieldy to ever be merged into the main line of development (particularly now that the Python 3 porting effort is significantly underway).

If this is a feature, it may be relevant to some future efforts - if they are sufficiently similar to the "cloud backend" effort - but I am still closing it because there are no immediate plans for a new development effort in such a direction.

Tickets related to the "leasedb" are included in this set because the "leasedb" code is in the "cloud backend" branch and fairly well intertwined with the "cloud backend". If there is interest in lease implementation change at some future time then that effort will essentially have to be restarted as well.

The established line of development on the "cloud backend" branch has been abandoned. This ticket is being closed as part of a batch-ticket cleanup for "cloud backend"-related tickets. If this is a bug, it is probably genuinely no longer relevant. The "cloud backend" branch is too large and unwieldy to ever be merged into the main line of development (particularly now that the Python 3 porting effort is significantly underway). If this is a feature, it may be relevant to some future efforts - if they are sufficiently similar to the "cloud backend" effort - but I am still closing it because there are no immediate plans for a new development effort in such a direction. Tickets related to the "leasedb" are included in this set because the "leasedb" code is in the "cloud backend" branch and fairly well intertwined with the "cloud backend". If there is interest in lease implementation change at some future time then that effort will essentially have to be restarted as well.

exarkun added the

wontfix

label 2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

exarkun closed this issue

2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.