Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: Blobs in S3

2011-07-07 Thread Laurence Rowe
On 6 July 2011 19:44, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: We're evaluating AWS for some of our applications and I'm thinking of adding some options to support using S3 to store Blobs: 1. Allow a storage in a ZEO storage server to store Blobs in S3.    This would probably be through some sort of

Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: Blobs in S3

2011-07-07 Thread Jim Fulton
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Alan Runyan runy...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: We're evaluating AWS for some of our applications and I'm thinking of adding some options to support using S3 to store Blobs: Mind clarifying, is the

Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: Blobs in S3

2011-07-07 Thread Jim Fulton
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: ... One thing I found with my (rather naive) experiments building s3storage a few years ago is that you need to ensure requests to S3 are made in parallel to get reasonable performance. This would be a lesser problem with

Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: Blobs in S3

2011-07-07 Thread Mikko Ohtamaa
Adding the ability to store blobs in S3 would be an excellent feature for AWS based deployments. I'm not convinced that presenting S3 urls to the end users is terribly useful as there is no ability to set a Content-Disposition header and the url will not end with the correct file extension,

Re: [ZODB-Dev] RFC: Blobs in S3

2011-07-07 Thread Laurence Rowe
On 7 July 2011 16:55, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote: ... One thing I found with my (rather naive) experiments building s3storage a few years ago is that you need to ensure requests to S3 are made in parallel to get

[ZODB-Dev] RFC: Blobs in S3

2011-07-06 Thread Jim Fulton
We're evaluating AWS for some of our applications and I'm thinking of adding some options to support using S3 to store Blobs: 1. Allow a storage in a ZEO storage server to store Blobs in S3. This would probably be through some sort of abstraction to make this not actually depend on S3.