S3 Eventual consistency: Is it safe to delete an object while there's an outstanding copy for it?
I'm issuing an S3 CopyObject (aka PUT copy) from a source bucket that is different than the destination bucket. I'm wondering if it's safe to delete the source after CopyObject has returned OK to the REST client. By "safe", I mean that the destination object will eventually show up, and that it will initially contain all of the data available at the time the copy was issued.
Corruption in the copy is perhaps unlikely (given that most operations are atomic), but the two operations cancelling each other might be possible. I wish the docs were slightly more fleshed out wrt to eventual consistency.
(in my scenario, nothing's writing to the source nor destination key in the interim. and the same client does the copy and delete).
e.g. synchronous pseudocode:
try:
# make sure this is a create. read-after-create consistency
my_tmpname = "new_tempfile" + uuid4()
s3_put(data, "s3://my-bucket1/" + my_tmpname)
...
# copy it to its final location
s3_copy("s3://my-bucket1/new_tempfile", "s3://my-bucket2/final_location")
finally:
# Cleanup temp file.
#
# Can this delete interfere with the copy in flight?
# e.g. Should one wait a few seconds/minutes?
# e.g. Should one ensure that the target exists before deleting source?
s3_delete("s3://my-bucket/new_tempfile")
amazon-web-services amazon-s3
add a comment |
I'm issuing an S3 CopyObject (aka PUT copy) from a source bucket that is different than the destination bucket. I'm wondering if it's safe to delete the source after CopyObject has returned OK to the REST client. By "safe", I mean that the destination object will eventually show up, and that it will initially contain all of the data available at the time the copy was issued.
Corruption in the copy is perhaps unlikely (given that most operations are atomic), but the two operations cancelling each other might be possible. I wish the docs were slightly more fleshed out wrt to eventual consistency.
(in my scenario, nothing's writing to the source nor destination key in the interim. and the same client does the copy and delete).
e.g. synchronous pseudocode:
try:
# make sure this is a create. read-after-create consistency
my_tmpname = "new_tempfile" + uuid4()
s3_put(data, "s3://my-bucket1/" + my_tmpname)
...
# copy it to its final location
s3_copy("s3://my-bucket1/new_tempfile", "s3://my-bucket2/final_location")
finally:
# Cleanup temp file.
#
# Can this delete interfere with the copy in flight?
# e.g. Should one wait a few seconds/minutes?
# e.g. Should one ensure that the target exists before deleting source?
s3_delete("s3://my-bucket/new_tempfile")
amazon-web-services amazon-s3
its a synchronous call. As long as you do not delete source files from outside the script while copy is in-progress, you will be fine.
– Asdfg
Nov 16 '18 at 14:14
add a comment |
I'm issuing an S3 CopyObject (aka PUT copy) from a source bucket that is different than the destination bucket. I'm wondering if it's safe to delete the source after CopyObject has returned OK to the REST client. By "safe", I mean that the destination object will eventually show up, and that it will initially contain all of the data available at the time the copy was issued.
Corruption in the copy is perhaps unlikely (given that most operations are atomic), but the two operations cancelling each other might be possible. I wish the docs were slightly more fleshed out wrt to eventual consistency.
(in my scenario, nothing's writing to the source nor destination key in the interim. and the same client does the copy and delete).
e.g. synchronous pseudocode:
try:
# make sure this is a create. read-after-create consistency
my_tmpname = "new_tempfile" + uuid4()
s3_put(data, "s3://my-bucket1/" + my_tmpname)
...
# copy it to its final location
s3_copy("s3://my-bucket1/new_tempfile", "s3://my-bucket2/final_location")
finally:
# Cleanup temp file.
#
# Can this delete interfere with the copy in flight?
# e.g. Should one wait a few seconds/minutes?
# e.g. Should one ensure that the target exists before deleting source?
s3_delete("s3://my-bucket/new_tempfile")
amazon-web-services amazon-s3
I'm issuing an S3 CopyObject (aka PUT copy) from a source bucket that is different than the destination bucket. I'm wondering if it's safe to delete the source after CopyObject has returned OK to the REST client. By "safe", I mean that the destination object will eventually show up, and that it will initially contain all of the data available at the time the copy was issued.
Corruption in the copy is perhaps unlikely (given that most operations are atomic), but the two operations cancelling each other might be possible. I wish the docs were slightly more fleshed out wrt to eventual consistency.
(in my scenario, nothing's writing to the source nor destination key in the interim. and the same client does the copy and delete).
e.g. synchronous pseudocode:
try:
# make sure this is a create. read-after-create consistency
my_tmpname = "new_tempfile" + uuid4()
s3_put(data, "s3://my-bucket1/" + my_tmpname)
...
# copy it to its final location
s3_copy("s3://my-bucket1/new_tempfile", "s3://my-bucket2/final_location")
finally:
# Cleanup temp file.
#
# Can this delete interfere with the copy in flight?
# e.g. Should one wait a few seconds/minutes?
# e.g. Should one ensure that the target exists before deleting source?
s3_delete("s3://my-bucket/new_tempfile")
amazon-web-services amazon-s3
amazon-web-services amazon-s3
edited Nov 21 '18 at 19:59
init_js
asked Nov 16 '18 at 1:47
init_jsinit_js
1,060827
1,060827
its a synchronous call. As long as you do not delete source files from outside the script while copy is in-progress, you will be fine.
– Asdfg
Nov 16 '18 at 14:14
add a comment |
its a synchronous call. As long as you do not delete source files from outside the script while copy is in-progress, you will be fine.
– Asdfg
Nov 16 '18 at 14:14
its a synchronous call. As long as you do not delete source files from outside the script while copy is in-progress, you will be fine.
– Asdfg
Nov 16 '18 at 14:14
its a synchronous call. As long as you do not delete source files from outside the script while copy is in-progress, you will be fine.
– Asdfg
Nov 16 '18 at 14:14
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes, it is perfectly safe to delete an object immediately after a successful copy operation using that object as the source object, because copy operations are not asynchronous.
The copy request does not return until the operation has either succeeded or failed.
To help better ensure data durability, Amazon S3 PUT and PUT Object copy operations synchronously store your data across multiple facilities before returning
SUCCESS
.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/DataDurability.html
The consistency model in S3 is related only to the visibility of objects, not the durability of their storage.
1
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
add a comment |
Amazon S3 features read-after-write consistency for PUTs and the copy case you exemplified:
Amazon S3 Data Consistency Model
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.
Check the documentation for consistency of the other operations.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Introduction.html
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53330317%2fs3-eventual-consistency-is-it-safe-to-delete-an-object-while-theres-an-outstan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, it is perfectly safe to delete an object immediately after a successful copy operation using that object as the source object, because copy operations are not asynchronous.
The copy request does not return until the operation has either succeeded or failed.
To help better ensure data durability, Amazon S3 PUT and PUT Object copy operations synchronously store your data across multiple facilities before returning
SUCCESS
.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/DataDurability.html
The consistency model in S3 is related only to the visibility of objects, not the durability of their storage.
1
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
add a comment |
Yes, it is perfectly safe to delete an object immediately after a successful copy operation using that object as the source object, because copy operations are not asynchronous.
The copy request does not return until the operation has either succeeded or failed.
To help better ensure data durability, Amazon S3 PUT and PUT Object copy operations synchronously store your data across multiple facilities before returning
SUCCESS
.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/DataDurability.html
The consistency model in S3 is related only to the visibility of objects, not the durability of their storage.
1
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
add a comment |
Yes, it is perfectly safe to delete an object immediately after a successful copy operation using that object as the source object, because copy operations are not asynchronous.
The copy request does not return until the operation has either succeeded or failed.
To help better ensure data durability, Amazon S3 PUT and PUT Object copy operations synchronously store your data across multiple facilities before returning
SUCCESS
.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/DataDurability.html
The consistency model in S3 is related only to the visibility of objects, not the durability of their storage.
Yes, it is perfectly safe to delete an object immediately after a successful copy operation using that object as the source object, because copy operations are not asynchronous.
The copy request does not return until the operation has either succeeded or failed.
To help better ensure data durability, Amazon S3 PUT and PUT Object copy operations synchronously store your data across multiple facilities before returning
SUCCESS
.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/DataDurability.html
The consistency model in S3 is related only to the visibility of objects, not the durability of their storage.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 13:48
Michael - sqlbotMichael - sqlbot
94.3k13140204
94.3k13140204
1
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
add a comment |
1
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
1
1
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
So, definitely start the delete after the copy is completed. Good to know that PUT and PUT-COPY are synchronous!
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:40
add a comment |
Amazon S3 features read-after-write consistency for PUTs and the copy case you exemplified:
Amazon S3 Data Consistency Model
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.
Check the documentation for consistency of the other operations.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Introduction.html
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
add a comment |
Amazon S3 features read-after-write consistency for PUTs and the copy case you exemplified:
Amazon S3 Data Consistency Model
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.
Check the documentation for consistency of the other operations.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Introduction.html
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
add a comment |
Amazon S3 features read-after-write consistency for PUTs and the copy case you exemplified:
Amazon S3 Data Consistency Model
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.
Check the documentation for consistency of the other operations.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Introduction.html
Amazon S3 features read-after-write consistency for PUTs and the copy case you exemplified:
Amazon S3 Data Consistency Model
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.
Check the documentation for consistency of the other operations.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Introduction.html
edited Nov 16 '18 at 13:19
answered Nov 16 '18 at 9:42
faermanjfaermanj
8,29164665
8,29164665
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
add a comment |
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
Most of the examples on that page cover consistency done over the same key however (e.g. read-after-write of the same key).
– init_js
Nov 16 '18 at 18:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53330317%2fs3-eventual-consistency-is-it-safe-to-delete-an-object-while-theres-an-outstan%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
its a synchronous call. As long as you do not delete source files from outside the script while copy is in-progress, you will be fine.
– Asdfg
Nov 16 '18 at 14:14