Skip to content

Update push-to-s3 - move to public requester-pays bucket.#11

Merged
eap merged 4 commits intodevelopfrom
feature/update-bucket
Aug 4, 2025
Merged

Update push-to-s3 - move to public requester-pays bucket.#11
eap merged 4 commits intodevelopfrom
feature/update-bucket

Conversation

@eap
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@eap eap commented Jul 31, 2025

This update changes the upload bucket for our s3 data with the rationale of (1) ending object expiration and (2) moving to requester pays.

Object Expiration:
The old bucket had object expiration which caused problems with GitHub's behavior of disabling actions on repositories with limited activity.

Requester Pays:
The new bucket is public to logged-in users (no anonymous access) and is configured with the requester pays behavior so that egress charges are billed to the account originating the file egress than to the account that owns the bucket (our account). In practice we expect JCSDA to be responsible for the majority of egress traffic but if this changes we will not be responsible for high utilization billing.

Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • N/A I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • N/A I have run the unit tests before creating the PR

This update changes the upload bucket for our s3 data with the rationale of (1) ending object expiration and (2) moving to _requester pays_.

__Object Expiration:__
The old bucket had object expiration which caused problems with GitHub's behavior of disabling actions on repositories with limited activity.

__Requester Pays:__
The new bucket is public to logged-in users (no anonymous access) and is configured with the _requester pays_ behavior so that egress charges are billed to the account originating the file egress than to the account that owns the bucket (our account). In practice we expect JCSDA to be responsible for the majority of egress traffic but if this changes we will not be responsible for high utilization billing.
@eap eap requested review from ashley314 and ytremolet July 31, 2025 16:05
@eap eap marked this pull request as ready for review July 31, 2025 16:05
@ashley314
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Will we be able to revert https://github.com/JCSDA-internal/jedi-tools/pull/460 after this or is that a different bucket/issue?

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ytremolet ytremolet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice to have an option where people who request the data pay the egress.

@eap
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

eap commented Jul 31, 2025

@ashley314 - yes. The prior bucket was used because we already had it and I assumed that regular cron uploads would resolve the 30-day cleanup (see the description for why that didn't pan out).

This change (which I'll apply to all our LFS exports once vetted here) uses a bucket more appropriately configured for the use case. Data requesters will pay egress fees and there is no data expiration rule.

@eap eap merged commit 654c33a into develop Aug 4, 2025
@eap eap deleted the feature/update-bucket branch August 4, 2025 15:46
eap added a commit to JCSDA-internal/ufo-data that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2025
This update changes the upload bucket for our s3 data with the rationale of (1) ending object expiration and (2) moving to requester pays.

See JCSDA-internal/mpas-jedi-data#11 for more details.
eap added a commit to JCSDA-internal/ioda-data that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2025
This update changes the upload bucket for our s3 data with the rationale of (1) ending object expiration and (2) moving to requester pays.

See JCSDA-internal/mpas-jedi-data#11 for more details.
eap added a commit to JCSDA-internal/fv3-jedi-data that referenced this pull request Aug 5, 2025
This update changes the upload bucket for our s3 data with the rationale of (1) ending object expiration and (2) moving to requester pays.

See JCSDA-internal/mpas-jedi-data#11 for more details.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants