Versioning is not suitable in my case because if the user wants to delete anything in storage it would be deleted permanently not soft-deleted but for the backup purpose, I have to use Cross-Region Replication and to use CRR I need to enable Versioning.
I tried to delete those object which has Delete-marker as the current version and non-current version as a soft deleted object. here is my life cycle rule policy. No Transitions, No current version expiration.
Only applied the Previous version permanently delete so that it considers delete marker as the current version and soft-deleted object as the previous version and delete it permanently BUT I DON'T KNOW IT IS NOT WORKING...!
I checked on next day the deleted version is still there also I have added multiple version of the same object and that versions are also not deleted.
If you have only just enabled it, it might still be queuing objects that need to be deleted.
Lifecycle policies do not delete exactly after this marker, in fact actions are queued and processed later on.
When an object reaches the end of its lifetime, Amazon S3 queues it for removal and removes it asynchronously. There might be a delay between the expiration date and the date at which Amazon S3 removes an object. You are not charged for storage time associated with an object that has expired.
Sometimes when you first configure it can be slightly delayed (because it has not queued anything) so I would suggest checking back in a couple of days when this process should now have happened.
More information is available in the Understanding object expiration documentation.
Related
I have a legacy S3 bucket (with data no longer required) that is 8TB - however the objects that I can see using the console only amount to approx 100mb.
I can see that there is a lifecycle policy on the bucket to transition to Standard-IA, and then permanently delete. These actions make objects noncurrent at day zero, and then moves noncurrent versions to Standard-IA at day 30. Then at day 365, all noncurrent versions are permanently deleted.
Bucket versioning is also enabled.
I would like to know what the most cost efficient way to delete this bucket is. My understanding is that although DELETE operations are free, LIST operations are not (and this is likely used). I believe this would occur if changing the lifecycle policy to delete files from 365 to say 1 day. Is there another option? Does the 'empty' option in the console remove all files without incurring an expense?
a lifecycle policy and delete operation will be free !!! , but a bucket empty option will not be free as behind the scenes empty bucket option will perform list operation before deletion.
For lifecycle policy
According to docs
You are not charged for expiration or the storage time associated with an object that has expired.
For 'empty' option
According to pricing page > requests and data retirevals
DELETE and CANCEL requests are free but it will cost you a small amount (not stated directly) because the api to delete objects requires to know the keys before deletion.
Behind the scenes of empty bucket option
It calls a LIST on the bucket, pagination through the objects in the bucket 1000 at a time. It calls a DeleteObjects API method, deleting 1000 at a time.
The cost is 1 API LIST call per 1000 objects in the bucket. Delete operations are free, so there's no extra cost there
does s3 have snapshots? how should I solve a problem where something would, for example, delete all my s3 data, how do I backup?
There are a couple options.
1. Enable versioning on your bucket. Every version of the objects will be retained. Deleting an object will just add a "delete marker" to indicate the object was deleted. You will pay for the storage of all the versions. Note that versions can also be deleted.
2. If you are just worried about deletion you can add a bucket policy to prevent deletion. You can also use some of the newer hold options.
3. You can use cross region replication to copy the objects to a bucket in a different region and optionally a different account.
We’ve been using Google Cloud Storage Transfer service and in our data source (AWS) we had a directory accidentally deleted, so we figured it would be in the data sink however upon taking a looking it wasn’t there despite versioning being on.
This leads us to believe in Storage Transfer the option deleteObjectsUniqueInSink hard deletes objects in the sink and removes them from the archive.
We'e been unable to confirm this in the documentation.
Is GCS Transfer Service's deleteObjectsUniqueInSink parameter in the TransferSpec mutually exclusive with GCS's object versioning soft-delete?
When the deleteObjectsUniqueInSink option is enabled, Google Cloud Storage Transfer will
List only the live versions of objects in source and destination buckets.
Copy any objects unique in the source to the destination bucket.
Issue a versioned delete for any unique objects in the destination bucket.
If the unique object is still live at the time that Google Cloud Storage Transfer issues the deletion, it will be archived. If another process, such as Object Lifecycle Management, archived the object before the deletion occurs, the object could be permanently deleted at this point rather than archived.
Edit: Specifying the version in the delete results in a hard delete (Objects Delete Documentation), so transfer service is currently performing hard deletes for unique objects. We will update the service to instead perform soft deletions.
Edit: The behavior has been changed. From now on deletions in versioned buckets will be soft deletes rather than hard deletes.
Looking at https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Introduction.html,
Amazon S3 provides read-after-write consistency for PUTS of new objects in your S3 bucket in all regions with one caveat. The caveat is that if you make a HEAD or GET request to the key name (to find if the object exists) before creating the object, Amazon S3 provides eventual consistency for read-after-write.
My understanding from this is that if I create a new object and I haven't checked for its existence beforehand, it should be available immediately (e.g., show up in list requests).
But the above link also says
...you might observe the following behaviors:
A process writes a new object to Amazon S3 and immediately lists keys within its bucket. Until the change is fully propagated, the object might not appear in the list.
which contradicts the first statement as it basically says read-after-write consistency is always eventual for PUTS.
I read it as:
Amazon guarantees that a ReadObject request (GET and HEAD) will succeed (read-after-write consistency) for any newly PUT object, assuming you haven't requested the object before
Amazon doesn't guarantee that a ListBucket request will be immediately consistent for any newly PUT object, but rather the new object will eventually show up in a ListBucket request (eventual consistency)
S3 is now strongly consistent, all S3 GET, PUT, and LIST operations, as well as operations that change object tags, ACLs, or metadata, are now strongly consistent. What you write is what you will read, and the results of a LIST will be an accurate reflection of what’s in the bucket. This applies to all existing and new S3 objects, works in all regions, and is available to you at no extra charge! There’s no impact on performance, you can update object hundreds of times per second if you’d like, and there are no global dependencies.
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-s3-update-strong-read-after-write-consistency/
I'm adding a lifecycle rule for a versioned bucket, and I'm confused about this:
Specifically, the "remove expired object delete marker" option. Why would one not want to remove that? If I have an object with just one version, and I delete that object/version, five days later it will be permanently deleted. Then there's a delete marker hanging around pointing to nothing, so what's the point of keeping it?
Amazon S3 will not automatically delete expired object delete markers. The lifecycle policy provides a means to do so.
Deleting the last version of an object that has a delete marker will merely delete the object. It does not trigger an action on S3 to determine whether there are any expired delete markers. So, yes, the lifecycle rule is worth implementing if the bucket is versioned and versions of objects are often deleted.