3 ms·

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 i

• jorblumesea 8y 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.
  • dodobirdlord 8y 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>
    • jorblumesea 8y ago
      urls would have to be global, but why buckets themselves? It seems like a many to one relationship would easily be possible.
      • kevan 8y ago
        Given the historical context (S3 launched 12 years ago, 5 months before EC2 launched with the us-east-1 region), it's reasonable that S3 buckets were global because regions didn't really exist yet as a concept. If you look at the docs now[1], new buckets are regionalized and the region is in the URL for non-us-east-1 regions. [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#s3_region https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#s3_...
        • jorblumesea 8y ago
          Got it, makes sense. So the only way you'd have a global bucket is if you created it before a certain date (whenever they were regional-ized, I assume). Thanks!
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]