131–140 of 187 posts
Why all that stuff with namespaces when they could just not allow name reuse?
I think a better policy would be to disallow bucket names that follow the account regional namespace convention, but don’t match the account id indicated in the name.
> For Azure Blob Storage, storage accounts are scoped with an account name and container name, so this is far less of a concern. The author probably misunderstood what "account name" is in Azure Storage's context, as it's pretty much the equivalent of S3's bucket name, and is definitely still a large concern. A single pool of unique names for storage accounts across all customers has been a very large source of frust…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS support seems to be struggling. I just came to help a new customer who had a rough severance with their previous key engineer. The root account password was documented, but the MFA went to his phone. We've tried talking to everyone we can, opening tickets, chats, trying to talk to their assigned account rep, etc, no one can remove the MFA. So right now luckily they have other admin accounts, but we straight up ca…
I named random Joe as the sole owner of "my" bank account and the bank wouldn't allow me to access "my" money!
* Backwards compatible
* Keeps readability
* Solves problem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always use plus-addressing if your email provider supports that. AWS considers plus-addressed root emails to be unique.
Doesn’t solve the SSO issue though unless you change your login email
I checked the documentation but I couldn't find anything to show this to be a problem other than that the practice is discouraged.
Speaking of unique names within AWS, I learned the other day that even after you delete an AWS account, you can’t reuse the root user email addresses (it’s documented, but I wasn’t aware). Someone at my org used their main company email address for a root user om an account we just closed and a 2nd company email for our current account. We are past the time period where AWS allows for reverting the account deletion.…
That seems like a GDPR violation waiting to happen. It shouldn't be possible for them to store an email address like that forever and be in compliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The .NL gTLD used to work like that for personal registrations (ie individuals without a business registration). $name.NNN.nl where you were allowed to choose the number. It won't surprise you the scheme never caught on and has been decommissioned (you can now register any available domain as an individual as well). The difference is probably few people use a personal TLD, but many use a name on some social media.
I didn’t think it was possible to have a personal TLD - did you mean a personal domain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like a GDPR violation waiting to happen. It shouldn't be possible for them to store an email address like that forever and be in compliance.
This can be implemented without storing it. They could store a hash. No idea what they actually do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
S3 was well aware of the pain when I was there ~10 years ago, just considered themselves handcuffed by the decisions made before the idea of a cloud was barely a twinkle in a few people's eyes, and even the idea of this kind of scale of operation wasn't seen as even remotely probable. The namespace issue is one of a whole long list of things S3 engineers wish they could change, including things like HTTP status code…
V1 never dies. You support it forever, including for customers who desperately want v2-only features but would rather escalate than migrate.
And sure, v1 is forever, but between getting to the point where new accounts can’t use it without a special request (or grandfathered in sweetheart rates, though that might be a PR disaster) and incentivizing migration off for existing users could absolutely get s3v1 to the point where it could be staffed for maintenance mode rather than staffed as a flagship feature.
It’d take years, but is totally possible. Amazon knows this. If they’re not doing it, it’s because the costs don’t make sense for them.
Why the hell is this a name suffix instead of just using subdomains? myapp-123456789012-us-west-2-an vs myapp.123456789012.us-west-2.s3.amazonaws.com The manipulations I will need to do to fit into the 63 char limit will be atrocious.