Opened at 2011-10-22T03:37:33Z
Last modified at 2012-03-31T23:59:05Z
#1568 closed defect
S3 backend: [storage]readonly is documented but ignored — at Version 3
| Reported by: | davidsarah | Owned by: | zooko |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
| Component: | code-storage | Version: | 1.9.0b1 |
| Keywords: | s3-backend readonly storage lae | Cc: | |
| Launchpad Bug: |
Description (last modified by davidsarah)
This option makes sense for the S3 backend and should be implemented (preferably for both mutable and immutable shares, i.e. avoiding bug #390). Or maybe not.
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed at 2011-10-22T03:40:11Z by davidsarah
comment:2 Changed at 2011-10-22T03:51:49Z by davidsarah
If we remove this option for S3 backends, we still need to test that when one server is attached to a read-only S3 bucket but other servers are accepting shares, then new shares go to those other servers.
Changed at 2011-10-22T04:59:52Z by davidsarah
comment:3 Changed at 2011-10-22T05:02:47Z by davidsarah
- Description modified (diff)
- Keywords review-needed added
- Owner set to zooko
- Summary changed from S3 backend ignores [storage]readonly to S3 backend: [storage]readonly is documented but ignored
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
Hmm, but another way to implement it is to make the access permissions on the bucket read-only. So maybe we should document that this is a disk-backend-only option, or maybe (as suggested in ticket:390#comment:5) we should remove it entirely.