Re:AWS faulty UX cost our business $7k and they refused to d...
by ineedasername on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @11:22PM
(#26338555)
The little animation shows some alert thrown by AWS when the author goes through their process, but it goes by too fast for me to make out the details. I'm not going to watch it 100 times to get it all, but I do see phrases about copies and folder objects that might be relevant to this issue. Perhaps warning about the limits of the action being taken? I can't tell.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:AWS faulty UX cost our business $7k and they refused to d...
by Prolixium on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @11:25PM
(#26338581)
FWIW, the first bullet mentions lifecycle rules:
"This action creates a copy of the object with updated settings and a new last-modified date. You can change the storage class without making a new copy of the object using a lifecycle rule."
Re:AWS faulty UX cost our business $7k and they refused to d...
by tyingq on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @11:40PM
(#26338696)
Here's a 1/3rd speed copy of the image: https://imgur.com/a/K1OEnhU
Re:AWS faulty UX cost our business $7k and they refused to d...
by idunno246 on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @11:26PM
(#26338593)
"This action creates a copy of the object with updated settings and a new last-modified date. You can change the storage class without making a new copy of the object using a lifecycle policy"
"This action applies to all objects within the specified folders"
I'd assume the first one means youll get charged once for standard and once for glacier
Re:AWS faulty UX cost our business $7k and they refused to d...
by mikeyla85 on Thursday March 04, 2021 @12:36AM
(#26339042)
It claims that the operation will make a copy instead of transition the objects, which as far as I understood it would have then deleted the original objects and accomplished something relatively similar but with an extra copy step.