----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kyle Bader" <kyle.bader@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <yehuda@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Harshal Gupta" <harshal.gupta001@xxxxxxxxx>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:22:56 PM > Subject: Re: Duplicate bucket creation Response in RGW > > > I don't see a compelling reason why to change our current behaviour. The > > fact that Amazon itself is inconsistent makes me think that it just an > > artifact of their architecture, rather than a carefully designed api. > > Interesting.. if we look at the Amazon S3 FAQ we can understand the > differences in API responses: > > "Q: What data consistency model does Amazon S3 employ? > > Amazon S3 buckets in the US Standard region provide eventual > consistency. Amazon S3 buckets in all other regions provide > read-after-write consistency for PUTS of new objects and eventual > consistency for overwrite PUTS and DELETES." > > If we consider buckets in our implementation to be eventually > consistent, we should probably return 200. If we can provide > read-after-write consistency, then we should probably return 209. > Do they tie the different responses to the different consistency models in the different regions? We're strongly consistent, however, I still think that bucket creation should be idempotent. Impatient client applications tend to retry operations and end up with error responses that can be avoided. Yehuda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
