4 ms·

A simple answer might be "time to move to another static hosting solution".

• PetahNZ 7y ago
  If static hosting is the purpose, just put cloud front in front if it.
• thayne 7y ago
  s3 isn't just used for static hosting. And if you have terabytes of data in a bucket that happens to have a dot in it (that may have been created a long time ago). Your options appear to be not using https, or spending a _lot_ of time and money moving to a new bucket or a different storage system. It seems to me that if Amazon is going to do this, they should at least provide a way to rename buckets without having to copy all of the objects.
  • runamok 7y ago
    It obviously depends on how many files we are talking about but copying files to a new bucket in the same region will not cost that much. You could definitely make the case to AWS that you don't want to pay since they are removing a feature and you might get a concession. $0.005 / 1,000 copy requests... ref: https://blog.cloudability.com/aws-s3-understanding-cloud-storage-costs-to-save/ https://blog.cloudability.com/aws-s3-understanding-cloud-sto... Also you will likely want to use some sort of parallel operation. I used this eons ago: https://github.com/mishudark/s3-parallel-put https://github.com/mishudark/s3-parallel-put
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Your options appear to be not using https, or spending a _lot_ of time and money moving to a new bucket or a different storage system. The only way it would be a lot of money to move to a new bucket is if the bucket is hardcoded everywhere. Moving data from one bucket to another is not expensive, and a configuration change to a referenced URL should be cheap, too.