I have a system in which I get a lot of messages. Each message has a unique ID, but it can also receives updates during its lifetime. As the time between the message sending and handling can be very long (weeks), they are stored in S3. For each message only the last version is needed. My problem is that occasionally two messages of the same id arrive together, but they have two versions (older and newer).
Is there a way for S3 to have a conditional PutObject request where I can declare "put this object unless I have a newer version in S3"?
I need an atomic operation here
That's not the use-case for S3, which is eventually-consistent. Some ideas:
You could try to partition your messages - all messages that start with A-L go to one box, M-Z go to another box. Then each box locally checks that there are no duplicates.
Your best bet is probably some kind of database. Depending on your use case, you could use a regular SQL database, or maybe a simple RAM-only database like Redis. Write to multiple Redis DBs at once to avoid SPOF.
There is SWF which can make a unique processing queue for each item, but that would probably mean more HTTP requests than just checking in S3.
David's idea about turning on versioning is interesting. You could have a daemon that periodically trims off the old versions. When reading, you would have to do "read repair" where you search the versions looking for the newest object.
Couldn't this be solved by using tags, and using a Condition on that when using PutObject? See "Example 3: Allow a user to add object tags that include a specific tag key and value" here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/object-tagging.html#tagging-and-policies
Related
Could not find a definitive answer here.
According to Amazon S3 docs, the caveat for read after write is if I got 404 for GET, then PUT a new object, then GET.
My question is, after I do GET a successful read,
does subsequent reads will be successful too?
Example:
GET key 404
PUT key 200
GET key 404 # because caveat
GET key 200
From now on, does any subsequent GET key is guaranteed to be successful?
The caveat AWS describes in the S3 documentation suggests that they use a caching layer on top of the database they use to store details of objects in S3 like it's key and meta data.
If you do a PUT for a object as first operation and a GET afterwards, there will be a cache miss for the GET operation so the caching layer will fetch information about this object from the database.
If you do a GET before the PUT the caching layer will query the database, will receive the information that this object doesn't exist and cache that information, even though after the PUT creates the mentioned object shortly after. So the GET after the PUT will receive the information that the object doesn't exist from the cache.
That's probably why this caveat exists. Unfortunately that doesn't answer your question, because we don't know how that caching layer works. If this layer uses shared state, then you should receive a 200 response for all requests, once you received one response with 200. My guess is that they don't use shared state for the caching layer, as that's easier to scale. Without shared state it depends on your luck, the time-to-live for items in the cache and if they employ some kind of cache invalidation for updated objects whether you receive a 200 or a 404 for requests even after the first successful 200 request.
Because the details of the inner workings of S3 are unknown I wouldn't rely on ubsequent calls to succeed, but my guess is that the probability of receiving a 404 after a successful 200 is rather low. In the end you have to decide based on your use case if and how it makes sense to account for this situation or not.
Updated answer
Snippets from the official AWS blog
S3 is Now Strongly Consistent
After that overly-long introduction, I
am ready to share some good news!
Effective immediately, 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 an object hundreds of times per second
if you’d like, and there are no global dependencies.
I've written a function in Python that uploads a folder and its content to S3. Now I would like S3 to generate an event (so I can send it to a lambda function). S3 allows to generate events only at file level, in fact folders on s3 are just a visualization layer, which means that S3 has no internal representation for folders, keys with the same root are simply grouped together. That said, as for now I've come up with three approaches that revolves around the idea of a 'poison pill'.
Send a special file at the end of the folder upload process, the creation of which sends an event to lambda that can open the file to read custom directives to act on. Seems that this approach is quite flexible, however it poses serious concerns security-wise (I know that ACLs are in place for this reason but I'm not quite sure if it's enough), and generates some overhead while downloading/uploading/deleting the file from/to local memory.
Map an event to the target lambdas and fire it directly. The difference in approaches is simply that in this case I'm not really creating a file on S3, I'm just making S3 believe so. I would use CloudWatch to fire custom S3-object-created events with the name of the folder for lambda to pick up. This approach feels a little more hacky than the other two, plus when I did my research on the matter it seemed like it shouldn't be possible to generate "mock" events on AWS (i.e. Trigger S3 create event). To my understanding however, the function put_events should do the trick.
Using SQS would allow to put the folder name into an SQS task that can be later consumed by lambda. This has some advantages over the other two approaches, since SQS has now a LIFO variant that allows for exactly-once-delivery, failures reprocessing (via dead letters queue), etc, however this generates a non-trivial amount of complexity compared to the other approaches.
At this point I'm trying to opt for the most 'correct' approach, and
in order to do so I'm trying to weight pros and cons to make an informed decision, which led me to some questions:
Is there another way I'm missing out to proceed that does not involve client notification ? (all the aforementioned approaches rely on the client sending the notification in one way or another, which is not very "cloudy")?
Is there a substantial difference between approaches 2 and 3, considering that both rely on sending the information in and out of a stream (CloudWatch and SQS respectively)?
Have you consider using the prefix option of S3 bucket event, I tested it and it worked fine. In my S3 bucket I created two folder test1 and test2. On s3 event I added prefix test1 with that in place every time put/copy operation happen on bucket lambda is trigger.
I think your question nets down to "how can I trigger a Lambda function after I have uploaded a folder full of files to S3?"
Unless you have some information a priori server-side that you can use to determine when the folder upload has completed, the client is going to have to tell you.
Options I would consider:
change your client to publish a message to SNS or to SQS upon the completion of uploading to S3. That message can then trigger your Lambda function.
after the last file has been uploaded to folder images/dogs/, upload a zero-sized object whose key is the same as the folder (images/dogs/). This is a 'sentinel file'. Use an S3 event trigger with suffix of / to detect the upload of that 'folder' object and trigger your Lambda.
I prefer the 1st option. It achieves the end goal without resulting in extraneous S3 objects. With SNS you can also configure multiple downstream processes in response to the ‘finished upload’ message (a fan out) if needed.
S3 FAQ mentions that "Amazon S3 buckets in all Regions provide read-after-write consistency for PUTS of new objects and eventual consistency for overwrite PUTS and DELETES." However, I don't know how long it takes to get eventual consistency. I tried to search for this but couldn't find an answer in S3 documentation.
Situation:
We have a website consists of 7 steps. When user clicks on save in each step, we want to save a json document (contains information of all 7 steps) to Amazon S3. Currently we plan to:
Create a single S3 bucket to store all json documents.
When user saves step 1 we create a new item in S3.
When user saves step 2-7 we override the existing item.
After user saves a step and refresh the page, he should be able to see the information he just saved. i.e. We want to make sure that we always read after write.
The full json document (all 7 steps completed) is around 20 KB.
After users clicked on save button we can freeze the page for some time and they cannot make other changes until save is finished.
Question:
How long does it take for AWS S3 to save and load an item? (We can freeze our website when document is being saved to S3)
Is there a function to calculate save/load time based on item size?
Is the save/load time gonna be different if I choose another S3 region? If so which is the best region for Seattle?
I wanted to add to #error2007s answers.
How long does it take for AWS S3 to save and load an item? (We can freeze our website when document is being saved to S3)
It's not only that you will not find the exact time anywhere - there's actually no such thing exact time. That's just what "eventual consistency" is all about: consistency will be achieved eventually. You can't know when.
If somebody gave you an upper bound for how long a system would take to achieve consistency, then you wouldn't call it "eventually consistent" anymore. It would be "consistent within X amount of time".
The problem now becomes, "How do I deal with eventual consistency?" (instead of trying to "beat it")
To really find the answer to that question, you need to first understand what kind of consistency you truly need, and how exactly the eventual consistency of S3 could affect your workflow.
Based on your description, I understand that you would write a total of 7 times to S3, once for each step you have. For the first write, as you correctly cited the FAQs, you get strong consistency for any reads after that. For all the subsequent writes (which are really "replacing" the original object), you might observe eventual consistency - that is, if you try to read the overwritten object, you might get the most recent version, or you might get an older version. This is what is referred to as "eventual consistency" on S3 in this scenario.
A few alternatives for you to consider:
don't write to S3 on every single step; instead, keep the data for each step on the client side, and then only write 1 single object to S3 after the 7th step. This way, there's only 1 write, no "overwrites", so no "eventual consistency". This might or might not be possible for your specific scenario, you need to evaluate that.
alternatively, write to S3 objects with different names for each step. E.g., something like: after step 1, save that to bruno-preferences-step-1.json; then, after step 2, save the results to bruno-preferences-step-2.json; and so on, then save the final preferences file to bruno-preferences.json, or maybe even bruno-preferences-step-7.json, giving yourself the flexibility to add more steps in the future. Note that the idea here to avoid overwrites, which could cause eventual consistency issues. Using this approach, you only write new objects, you never overwrite them.
finally, you might want to consider Amazon DynamoDB. It's a NoSQL database, you can securely connect to it directly from the browser or from your server. It provides you with replication, automatic scaling, load distribution (just like S3). And you also have the option to tell DynamoDB that you want to perform strongly consistent reads (the default is eventually consistent reads; you have to change a parameter to get strongly consistent reads). DynamoDB is typically used for "small" records, 20kB is definitely within the range -- the maximum size of a record would be 400kB as of today. You might want to check this out: DynamoDB FAQs: What is the consistency model of Amazon DynamoDB?
How long does it take for AWS S3 to save and load an item? (We can freeze our website when document is being saved to S3)
You will not find the exact time anywhere. If you ask AWS they will give you approx timings. Your file is 20 KB so as per my experience from S3 usage the time will be more or less 60-90 Sec.
Is there a function to calculate save/load time based on item size?
No there is no any function using which you can calculate this.
Is the save/load time gonna be different if I choose another S3 region? If so which is the best region for Seattle?
For Seattle US West Oregon Will work with no problem.
You can also take a look at this experiment for comparison https://github.com/andrewgaul/are-we-consistent-yet
I am seeking advice on what's the best way to design this -
Use Case
I want to put multiple files into S3. Once all files are successfully saved, I want to trigger a lambda function to do some other work.
Naive Approach
The way I am approaching this is by saving a record in Dynamo that contains a unique identifier and the total number of records I will be uploading along with the keys that should exist in S3.
A basic implementation would be to take my existing lambda function which is invoked anytime my S3 bucket is written into, and have it check manually whether all the other files been saved.
The Lambda function would know (look in Dynamo to determine what we're looking for) and query S3 to see if the other files are in. If so, use SNS to trigger my other lambda that will do the other work.
Edit: Another approach is have my client program that puts the files in S3 be responsible for directly invoking the other lambda function, since technically it knows when all the files have been uploaded. The issue with this approach is that I do not want this to be the responsibility of the client program... I want the client program to not care. As soon as it has uploaded the files, it should be able to just exit out.
Thoughts
I don't think this is a good idea. Mainly because Lambda functions should be lightweight, and polling the database from within the Lambda function to get the S3 keys of all the uploaded files and then checking in S3 if they are there - doing this each time seems ghetto and very repetitive.
What's the better approach? I was thinking something like using SWF but am not sure if that's overkill for my solution or if it will even let me do what I want. The documentation doesn't show real "examples" either. It's just a discussion without much of a step by step guide (perhaps I'm looking in the wrong spot).
Edit In response to mbaird's suggestions below-
Option 1 (SNS) This is what I will go with. It's simple and doesn't really violate the Single Responsibility Principal. That is, the client uploads the files and sends a notification (via SNS) that its work is done.
Option 2 (Dynamo streams) So this is essentially another "implementation" of Option 1. The client makes a service call, which in this case, results in a table update vs. a SNS notification (Option 1). This update would trigger the Lambda function, as opposed to notification. Not a bad solution, but I prefer using SNS for communication rather than relying on a database's capability (in this case Dynamo streams) to call a Lambda function.
In any case, I'm using AWS technologies and have coupling with their offering (Lambda functions, SNS, etc.) but I feel relying on something like Dynamo streams is making it an even tighter coupling. Not really a huge concern for my use case but still feels dirty ;D
Option 3 with S3 triggers My concern here is the possibility of race conditions. For example, if multiple files are being uploaded by the client simultaneously (think of several async uploads fired off at once with varying file sizes), what if two files happen to finish uploading at around the same time, and two or more Lambda functions (or whatever implementations we use) query Dynamo and gets back N as the completed uploads (instead of N and N+1)? Now even though the final result should be N+2, each one would add 1 to N. Nooooooooooo!
So Option 1 wins.
If you don't want the client program responsible for invoking the Lambda function directly, then would it be OK if it did something a bit more generic?
Option 1: (SNS) What if it simply notified an SNS topic that it had completed a batch of S3 uploads? You could subscribe your Lambda function to that SNS topic.
Option 2: (DynamoDB Streams) What if it simply updated the DynamoDB record with something like an attribute record.allFilesUploaded = true. You could have your Lambda function trigger off the DynamoDB stream. Since you are already creating a DynamoDB record via the client, this seems like a very simple way to mark the batch of uploads as complete without having to code in knowledge about what needs to happen next. The Lambda function could then check the "allFilesUploaded" attribute instead of having to go to S3 for a file listing every time it is called.
Alternatively, don't insert the DynamoDB record until all files have finished uploading, then your Lambda function could just trigger off new records being created.
Option 3: (continuing to use S3 triggers) If the client program can't be changed from how it works today, then instead of listing all the S3 files and comparing them to the list in DynamoDB each time a new file appears, simply update the DynamoDB record via an atomic counter. Then compare the result value against the size of the file list. Once the values are the same you know all the files have been uploaded. The down side to this is that you need to provision enough capacity on your DynamoDB table to handle all the updates, which is going to increase your costs.
Also, I agree with you that SWF is overkill for this task.
I have a large number of files that I am reading and writing to S3.
I am just wondering if I need to code for the case where a file is "half written" e.g. the S3 PUT / Write only "half" worked.
Or are writes to S3 all-or-nothing?
I know there is a read-write eventual consistency issue which (I think) is largely a separate issue.
See S3 PUT documentation:
Amazon S3 never adds partial objects; if you receive a success response, Amazon S3 added the entire object to the bucket.
For all regions except US Standard (us-east-1) you get read-after-write-consistency. This means that if you get an HTTP 200 OK for your PUT, you can read the object right away.
If your request is dropped in the middle, you would not get and HTTP 200 and your object would not be written at all.
UPDATE: All regions now support read-after-write consistency (thanks #jeff-loughridge):
https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2015/08/amazon-s3-introduces-new-usability-enhancements/
From the docs:
Updates to a single key are atomic. For example, if you PUT to an existing key from one thread and perform a GET on the same key from a second thread concurrently, you will get either the old data or the new data, but never partial or corrupt data.
This answer is somewhat similar to the existing ones, but it stresses on the fact that not only there is no risk of leaving a partially-written object behind, but also that a reader will never be put at risk of seeing (reading) a partially-written object.