CODEWITHSUNDEEP
laravelamazon-web-serviceslaravel-5amazon-s3amazon-elastic-beanstalk
user1465627
user1465627

Reputation: 41

AWS temporary files before uploading to S3?

My Laravel app allows users to upload images. Currently, when the user uploads their images, they are stored in a temporary location on the server. A cron job then modifies the uploaded images (compresses them, etc.), and uploads them to S3. Any temporary files older than 48 hours that failed to upload to S3 are deleted by another cron job.

I've set up an Elastic Beanstalk environment, but it's occurred to me that storing uploaded images in a temporary directory on an instance is risky because instances can be created and destroyed when necessary.

How and where, then, would I store these temporary files so that they're not at risk of being deleted by an instance?

Upvotes: 4

Views: 9246

Answers (2)

pfcodes
pfcodes

Reputation: 1086

S3 has a feature called object lifecycle management you can use to have files deleted automatically by setting them them to expire 2 days after they're uploaded.

You can either:

A) Prefix the temporary files to put them in an S3 psuedo-folder (i.e., Temp/), apply the object lifecycle expire rule to that specific prefix (or "folder"), and use the files in there as a source of truth for the new files derived from it post-manipulation.

or

B) Create an S3 bucket specifically for temporary files. Manipulate the files from there and copy to the production bucket.

Upvotes: 2

KayakinKoder
KayakinKoder

Reputation: 3461

As discussed in the comments, I think that uploading the file to S3 is the best option. As far as I know, it's not possible to stop Elastic Beanstalk from destroying an ec2 instance, unless you want to get rid of all of the scaling and instance failure/autoreplacement features.

One option I don't know much about may be AWS EBS. "Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) provides persistent block storage volumes for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud." I don't have any direct experience with EBS, the overriding question of course would be if EBS is truly persistent, even after an ec2 instance is destroyed. As EBS has costs associated with it, it seems like since you are already using S3, S3 would be the way to go.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions