If your into plain vanilla SFTP and don't have large storage needs, https://cloudbuddy.cloud takes less than 1 minute to setup.
AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
91–100 of 158 posts
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#92Anyone know if this can be used directly from CloudFormation?
How are you envision using it.
Ideally the same way we define an EC2 instance, perhaps bound directly to an S3 bucket resource defined in the same script. Ideally reading the config definition from an S3 file that we can update at will.
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#93Anyone know if this can be used directly from CloudFormation?
New services rarely launch with CF support, if you want to programmatically create SFTP servers TODAY you could write a Lambda that uses the SDK and reference that Lambda with a CF Custom Resource.
> New services rarely launch with CF support
Yeah I'm slowly learning that.
Thanks for the tip, at least it's a step in the right direction.
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you envision using it.
Ideally the same way we define an EC2 instance, perhaps bound directly to an S3 bucket resource defined in the same script. Ideally reading the config definition from an S3 file that we can update at will.
If the file is PUT in a S3 bucket via SFTP, you can trigger a lambda that run CF template.
But that seems kind of Rube Goldbergish. Why not make the change to the file, push it to Git and use CodePipeline with lambda?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#95Charged by the hour... pay for an instance.. Tsk tsk.. The thing I love about S3 and cloud services in general is when I pay per request and can scale through the roof. Whenever a services is meter by number of instances my interest fades, and I look for other solutions.. S3 has this very handsoff feeling to it :)
AWS should investigate a new concept called serverless.
That would never catch on, its obvious there has to be a server somewhere, people ain't stupid.
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
In large business, sure. In small business and education, a $200/mo commitment could easily require approval by the owner or the department chair.
The alternative is developer time. Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. A small company has even more of reason to want as many managed services as possible. You can avoid hiring netops if you both have a third party managed service provider to manage your network and you have developers/architects who know enough to fill in the gaps.
> Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved.
I literally can't parse this.
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#97There are a handful of services out there that do this, I know because I've needed it on multiple occasions. It's nice that Amazon is providing it in house now, but it just reminds of me the last time I went to re:invent and walked through the vendor area and thought about how many of these companies are four dev cycles away from Amazon producing a baked in competitor. Hard to make a B To B Amazon tool these days.
That’s quite literally AWS’s playbook. Fill the vendor hall with tech, learn it, see what sticks and then crush it. This is why I’m bullish on cloud agnostic tech. These practices don’t typically fair well in the enterprise space. This is why companies like MSFT are interesting to me. They partner and rarely kill. Amazon is the complete opposite.
I wouldn’t count on that. These hyperscale players don’t have the time to worry about their “friends”.
Example: Do you really think that the warm embrace of VMware Horizon and Citrix on Azure is the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#98An alternative to doing file based SFTP is to just treat SFTP like an API. A company I work for implemented an SFTP service where every operation simply translates to some SQL DB lookup. And a file download kicks off a larger SQL query and generates the report on the fly, streaming the result straight through to the SFTP client. Works great! SFTP can be an API just like HTTP. Under the hood the protocol is reasonably…
What if you open an SFTP handle, and then write 5 bytes halfway through a 20 GB file and close the handle? How do you translate that?
Similar to how you might handle writing 5 bytes 20gb offset into /dev/null?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#99> SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) It's SSH File Transfer Protocol. When you say Secure File Transfer Protocol many people think about FTP over SSL if you don't emphasize it's about SSH.
I've never even heard of FTP over SSL. Is that something that never became popular due to the existence of OpenSSH?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is developer time. Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. A small company has even more of reason to want as many managed services as possible. You can avoid hiring netops if you both have a third party managed service provider to manage your network and you have developers/architects who know enough to fill in the gaps.
> Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. I literally can't parse this.
Let me try again.
Baremetal vs Cloud hosting -> resource for resource baremetal will almost always end up being cheaper.
The only way you save money on managed services is the cost of management. Meaning every hour that someone doesn't have to spend maintaining infrastructure is a cost savings to the business. Every minute saved by allowing someone else to do the "undifferentiated heavy lifting" is money saved.