Recommend NFS over S3-like repositories #107297
Conversation
Allegedly-S3-compatible APIs are very popular these days, but many third-party systems offering such an API also support a shared filesystem interface. Shared filesystem protocols such as NFS are much better specified than the S3 API, and experience shows that they lead to fewer compatibility headaches. This commit adds a recommendation to the `repository-s3` docs to consider such an interface instead.
DaveCTurner
added
>docs
|
Documentation preview: |
elasticsearchmachine
added
the
Team:Distributed (Obsolete)
|
Pinging @elastic/es-docs (Team:Docs) |
|
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed (Team:Distributed) |
| behaviour in full. If you are using such a system for your snapshots, consider | ||
| using a <<snapshots-filesystem-repository,shared filesystem repository>> based | ||
| on a standardized protocol such as NFS to access your storage system instead. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to have a bit softer statement to say something like "If you are using such a system for snapshots, especially if such system does not pass verify snapshot repository tests, consider ..."? Is it helpful at all? Or maybe it is more misleading since the verify API may adapot new S3 features and what was compatible may become incompatible later?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the "consider" is soft enough. If the system doesn't pass verification then it absolutely shouldn't be used, but yeah we've seen enough systems that pass today but then fail some stricter checks in a future version. I think NFS is always worth considering in these situations, it just doesn't have the same problems.
💚 Backport successful
|
Allegedly-S3-compatible APIs are very popular these days, but many third-party systems offering such an API also support a shared filesystem interface. Shared filesystem protocols such as NFS are much better specified than the S3 API, and experience shows that they lead to fewer compatibility headaches. This commit adds a recommendation to the `repository-s3` docs to consider such an interface instead.
Allegedly-S3-compatible APIs are very popular these days, but many third-party systems offering such an API also support a shared filesystem interface. Shared filesystem protocols such as NFS are much better specified than the S3 API, and experience shows that they lead to fewer compatibility headaches. This commit adds a recommendation to the `repository-s3` docs to consider such an interface instead.
Allegedly-S3-compatible APIs are very popular these days, but many
third-party systems offering such an API also support a shared
filesystem interface. Shared filesystem protocols such as NFS are much
better specified than the S3 API, and experience shows that they lead to
fewer compatibility headaches. This commit adds a recommendation to the
repository-s3docs to consider such an interface instead.