Recent content by Jim Boy

+1 for this - would make maintenance a a lot easier as I sometimes script my add-on upgrades, this would make it super easy to generate the script - currently a cumbersome process and prone to error

Yeah for sure, R2 would be your best bet. The problem for you with S3 is that unless you are hosting your site on AWS, you will end up paying a lot for egress traffic as your internal data wont be cached between storage and web servers.

Well I dont know what you have done - just did a bit of testing and list-objects is honoured by R2, as is list-objects-v2 so need to update the AWS SDK. I take it the endpoint above has been modified

This isn't strictly true, they are different for a reason. list-types is valid only on listObjectsV2, the fact that it doesn't recognise it suggests that R2 isn't quite right - as that is the thing that really differentiates the two APIs see...

This isn't something that XenForo should fix, at least not yet. The issue lies with the underlying third party FlySystem library. A PR exists to fix this issue (https://github.com/thephpleague/flysystem-aws-s3-v3/pull/298) and when that gets merged and incorporarted, then yeah, XF should update...

Not that I've looked - Flysystem uses the official PHP AWS SDK, what issues are you seeing?

t4g shouldn't affect it - that only reduces your available CPU if you go too heavy. Is this external or internal data? Sounds like a caching issue either way. If using cloudfront to serve externally, you can invalidate the item, but I would (and already have) switched to using CloudFlare. As for...

Couple of ways - 1. Have separate buckets for external and internal data and block all public access on the internal bucket - internal and external data locations are defined separately already in config.php 2. Use the same bucket, but use a prefix, such as 'internal_data', in your definition...

Not stupid - by going via Cloudfront you can use OAI to keep items in the bucket private and not run it in 'website' mode. Cloudfront redudant? Technically yes. It may keep only a single copy of you file (which incidentally it stores unencrypted on disk), but if that is lost, it just grabs...

If it is a significant amount of data- then a CDN such as CloudFlare is the sensible approach. But that wont handle internal data. And given that wasabi also reserve the right to suspend operations on unverified applications if it doesn't like the way you use the API, then I would highlight that...

Yes - but I've never used wasabi, so cant say anything about it the managed S3FullAccess policy allows the user to do anything with s3 buckets and the objects inside. Is it safe? That depends on your context. If all you have in your AWS (or presumably wasabi) account is an S3 bucket that only...

I'm not going to comment on wasabi - its a third party and you use at you own risk -although as there are no deny statements, it wont affect anything. As for Amazon s3FullAccess - if you ain't storing any other data in the account, then you are probably ok. If you get breached, they can take...

The EFS is used really only for code cache and templates. We have 'internal-data' set to use S3, despite this XF actually does the templates and code cache locally, so we mount an EFS volume for that -not that much data and no retrieval costs. We run multiple servers so that data needs to be...

Have been using EFS since it was in "preview" years ago - the days of "free ec2 benefits" are long gone. good god no - I dont care how cheap a dedicated server is, the overhead on maintenance, backup, reliability and scalability means it is a false economy never mind that you are paying for...

eks? I think you mean efs, not kubernetes. Agree that efs is relatively expensive compared to s3 - to a point. S3 cost and performance on very small files is abysmal. And despite running one of the bigger and most complex XF sites going around (70 mill+ posts, 100,000+ users) our EFS cost last...