You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
However, when I turn on default encryption, the etags in the response no longer match the request (presumably because they are the md5 of the encrypted data). The multipart part uploader validates the etag on each part, despite also sending it to S3 for Amazon to validate, so the uploads of large files fails. Since I didn't see the value in the extra (and now invalid) check, I just commented it out in my fork.
Am I missing something in the value in the extra check? Is this worth pushing back into upstream (As a code deletion instead)? How about having the extra check configurable to run?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We can make this check configurable based on if the s3 bucket is using the default encryption. I believe that by using getBucketEncryption() method this check could be skipped at runtime if the s3 bucket is using default encryption type.
I have personally not seen this check ever getting triggered in our fleet but I don't see a value of removing either if you are not using default encryption. Making it configurable though could be a happy medium.
While I know that Priam has data encryption capabilities, I'd like to utilize S3 default encryption to save myself the hassle of managing encryption keys on my servers.
However, when I turn on default encryption, the etags in the response no longer match the request (presumably because they are the md5 of the encrypted data). The multipart part uploader validates the etag on each part, despite also sending it to S3 for Amazon to validate, so the uploads of large files fails. Since I didn't see the value in the extra (and now invalid) check, I just commented it out in my fork.
Am I missing something in the value in the extra check? Is this worth pushing back into upstream (As a code deletion instead)? How about having the extra check configurable to run?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: