[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-14749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16122901#comment-16122901
]
Mingliang Liu commented on HADOOP-14749:
----------------------------------------
{quote}
provision burden?
{quote}
I was thinking that, suppose a user has dozens of buckets in a region, if each
bucket has a dedicated DDB table, then the user will have to provision dozens
of tables according to each table's peak/idle load. Instead, if she shares the
metadata in a single DDB table for all the buckets in that region, she will
need to only provision one table capacity according to overall usage. This
amortizes the provision burden.
{quote}
how to handle s3guard as a read-only client.
{quote}
I know IAM role can have fine granularity about READ access to S3 bucket (e.g.
"s3:GetObject") and DDB table (e.g. "dynamodb:Query", "dynamodb:Get" etc). This
might be considered/operated by the user. But in code, we should not populate
the metadata from S3 to DDB in the read-only case.
> review s3guard docs & code prior to merge
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-14749
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-14749
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: documentation, fs/s3
> Affects Versions: HADOOP-13345
> Reporter: Steve Loughran
> Assignee: Steve Loughran
> Attachments: HADOOP-14749-HADOOP-13345-001.patch,
> HADOOP-14749-HADOOP-13345-002.patch, HADOOP-14749-HADOOP-13345-003.patch
>
> Original Estimate: 24h
> Remaining Estimate: 24h
>
> Pre-merge cleanup while it's still easy to do
> * Read through all the docs, tune
> * Diff the trunk/branch files to see if we can reduce the delta (and hence
> the changes)
> * Review the new tests
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
