Re: Duplicate bucket creation Response in RGW

[Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yehuda@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kyle Bader" <kyle.bader@gmail.com>
> To: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <yehuda@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Harshal Gupta" <harshal.gupta001@gmail.com>, "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> 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