Talk:Amazon S3

message: This article reads like a marketing brochure (we are so great, look at how many objects we already store). AWS has it's own website serving that purpose, wikipedia doesn't need to help with that. AWS has been undeniable extremely important in the development and promotion of Object Storage and the S3 protocol but this whole article needs to be redone from the ground up with a completely neutral bias. The history section is the place for the origins story of both S3 and AWS it's role in the matter.
"S3 is the name commonly used to indicate the combined access protocol and unstructured storage solution which enables both reading and writing through using common HTTP calls like PUT, LIST and GET. Storage is stored in the best suitable, yet to the user unknown, location. The storage location is stored in a metadata file pointing to it's physical location."
--Z Doc (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWS Marketing brochure 

message: Would technical details on how amazon developed and implemented the s3 service behind the scenes be of use? The article seems to be mainly about how the s3 is consumed at the moment. I have some knowledge in the area and could start writing a section. Its a fairly involved topic especially with the custom hardware they use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.87.177.177 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the technology used for S3 itself 

message: I noticed that the total objects stored has a citation needed and I have generally gotten this info from Werner Vogel's (Amazon CTO) blog.  I propose editing the sentence about total objects to read:
Amazon S3 is reported to store more than 14 billion objects as of January 2008, up from 10 billion in October of 2007.
With citation to point to: http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2008/03/happy_birthday_amazon_s3.html
If there are no objections, I will make the change tomorrow...
Outsideshot (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Objects Stored 

message: Note: as per , virtual-hosting DNS CNAME records should indeed point to s3.amazonaws.com, not bucket.s3.amazonaws.com:  see the Developer Guide's section on Virtual Hosting of Buckets.  —Piet Delport 04:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the CNAME record needed to point to s3.amazonaws.com, but according to  (retrieved Jan 10, 2010) "The CNAME DNS record should alias your domain name to the appropriate virtual hosted style host name. For example, if your bucket name (and domain name) is images.johnsmith.net, the CNAME record should alias to images.johnsmith.net.s3.amazonaws.com. [...] Setting the alias target to s3.amazonaws.com also works but may result in extra HTTP redirects."  --Vrmlguy (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNAME addressing 

message: I  a long list of promotional links to sites providing S3-related services;  see Links normally to be avoided.
In the (not unlikely) event that such links return, they should be given little tolerance.  —Piet Delport 05:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should pull the promo links. Its harsh, because it does bring in traffic. But that is not Wikipedia's job. Now, if any of the identified companies published some good papers on working with S3, about what worked, what didn't and how best to interact with it, that would be worth linking to. SteveLoughran (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pulled the JungleDisk entry. It would be unfair to leave it in and not the others. Now, if the specific products had their own wiki pages, and the pages were not voted for immediate deletion, then it would be appropriate to retain the links. SteveLoughran (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional links 

message: We should enumerate S3's competition.  Does Google Base really compete in this space? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Google Base overlaps.  Google File System probably comes closest, but it's not available to the public.  —Piet Delport 2007-08-09 01:12
I would say that Google Cloud Storage is now a direct competitor and should be listed now. The Wikipedia page for Google Storage lists S3 as a comparable solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Storage  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.0.34 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition

message: This kind of reads like an advertisement (especially the notable uses section), maybe this should be changed? 76.103.51.218 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I have started to add some technical content instead. It may be relevant to list libraries that provide access to the repository, and books that cover it. To list all the web sites that offer S3-hosted backup services would be like listing all web sites that use MySQL under the MySQL entry. SteveLoughran (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially the line about 99.999999999% durability.  A single corrupted object is enough to break that, and I can't believe they have a perfect record so far.  I have no information whether any data has been lost during outages, but with a service of this kind, _some_ loss is expected, at least unless every object is replicated off-site before any single write succeeds (and that would give noticeable delays, which we don't get). KiloByte (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement? 

message: Are there other services than Amazon S3 that have the same concept? Tried to find comparisons and so on but no luck  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.157.246 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several other services that offer on-demand raw storage via a services interface.  Examples include Nirvanix (private, based in San Diego) and Rackspace Cloud Files (Rackspace is public, based in San Antonio), but there are many others operating at smaller scale or trying to get off the ground.  Amazon appears to be the most widely adopted at this point.  Outsideshot (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Services? 

message: After the link purge, the page was free of external links other than to S3 itself. But I can see links to web interfaces to S3 creeping in. Can I discuss what the policy should be here. I am personally against them as by sharing your private AWS keys with third parties, they get de-facto access to your credit card to run up bills across AWS. By sharing your private AWS keys across unencrypted HTTP connections, anyone on the net has effective access to AWS services under your user ID. Encouraging people to use these services is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 11:36, October 9, 2008
: WP:EL should of course be the overriding policy, but to clarify in this case I removed the third-party links because (1) they served mostly to advertise services, rather than providing useful information about the topic, and (2) we can't possibly link to every S3-related resource (see WP:NOTLINK). If, as you say, using these services actually poses a security risk, then that is an even stronger reason for us not to link to them. Adam McMaster (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to S3 viewing services 

message: DropBox seems to be one of the highest profile users of  S3 for data storage  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.252.53 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any criteria being applied to evaluate notable use in this context?  Within this section alone there are three mentions (dropbox, kompoz, and 37signals) and only one is mentioned in the article.  Ubuntu One is mentioned in the article but not here.  What about JungleDisk, Elephantdrive, or Zmanda (or the many others)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsideshot (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteable Uses 

message: "After seven months of using S3, Smugmug claimed to have saved almost $1 million in storage costs, though some commentors questioned SmugMugs claims, pointing out that S3 charges per month[10]."
The correct word is 'commentators', right? Google returns some results, but online Cambridge Dictionary doesn't. Lukaszsw (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentors? 

message: I don't know if there is a guarantee (or even what a guarantee really implies, does it mean they would have to pay you damages for lost data?), but there is a service level agreement that states:
"AWS will use commercially reasonable efforts to make Amazon S3 available with a Monthly Uptime Percentage (defined below) of at least 99.9% during any monthly billing cycle (the “Service Commitment”). In the event Amazon S3 does not meet the Service Commitment, you will be eligible to receive a Service Credit as described below."
http://aws.amazon.com/s3-sla/
--Bijansoleymani (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guarantee 

message: Seems like this article tout's S3's success without discussing many of its limitations. Some ideas for a new section:
* No uptime guarantees
* No concurrency guarantees
* Not possible to determine if a change is committed globally or not.
* Relatively large number of spontaneously failed requests (I've seen as high as 5%)
* Objects limited to 5GB
* Somewhat cumbersome interface
Please feel free to contribute your ideas here or build them into a new section to make the article more NPOV. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of this, and would add "non-standard semantics for move/copy operations, rather than supporting the WebDav operations", and "no way to put a hard limit on your bandwidth use". One issue though, it may get blocked off as original research -as my other work did- unless there is some external citation of it that we can point to  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  These limitations have been blogged and documented extensively, so I don't think it would be hard to add citations. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to add these changes, but feel free to be WP:BOLD and go ahead! Vectro (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations of S3 

message: S3 Objects are commonly used for many other purposes other than online backup - e.g. serving both static and dynamic web assets , direct website hosting, storage for web/desktop/server applications, file system storage, etc.
I'm not sure what term it can be classified as, but it's definitely not just for online backups. Suggestions are welcome --cookingwithrye (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with this, perhaps "online storage service?" It's a Fox! (What did I break) 07:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of site	Online backup service? 

message: S3 was the 5th service from AWS. All of these services require an AWS account and were introduced via the AWS What's New site.
# Alexa Web Information Service - 2004-10-04
# Simple Queue Service - 2004-11-03
# Mechanical Turk - 2005-11-02
# Alexa Top Sites - 2006-01-12
# S3 - 2006-03-13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbirkby (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context 

message: S3 is one of a large suite of services available from Amazon Web Services.  There is a line in the overview section (last line currently) that reads:
Amazon S3 is the most profitable division under the entire Amazon company.[14]
Per the citation, I think this is in error - the article reports that AWS is Amazon's most profitable division, not that S3 (a specific service offered by AWS) is.  In fact, S3 is not a division at all. I propose deleting this line entirely as inaccurate, or amending it to say Amazon S3 is the one of the key drivers of AWS, the most profitable division under the entire Amazon company.[14] , which can be inferred from the article.
Thoughts or comments?
Outsideshot (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. If you find an issue like this, you can always go ahead and change it, especially when it's a blatant factual error like this. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the encouragement.  I have made the edit.  Outsideshot (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with AWS 

message: The function for Object Lock / Immutability is missing in this article. This can be used by vendors like Veeam to have protection in a ransomware attac.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.249.11 (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object Lock / Immutability 

message: "The basic storage units of Amazon S3 are objects which are organized into buckets. Each object is identified by..."  Fine, I get what an object is, but what is a bucket?  Some kind of repository for objects, obviously, but are they sort of like a personal file system? but without any internal structure, I guess, since you have to use a unique key to access an object.  Is it a unit of storage for a user or group of users?  Some kind of explanation or definition would be nice. Mcswell (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article states that S3 supports Bittorrent. This is no longer true. Cf. https://alexwlchan.net/2021/06/s3-deprecates-bittorrent/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.163.138 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecation of S3 Bittorrent support 

message: q7uh 134.35.54.45 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  economy 

message: الوافاي كيف يتم كشف كروت اشبكه 46.35.85.42 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  الوافاي كيف يتم كشف كروت اشبكه