Use an endpoint instead of a port for the Minio service?

[mcg1969]

Hey folks! I wanted to ask if there was a specific reason why the Minio service was chosen to be deployed on a dedicated port (9080) instead of somewhere on the path of the existing HTTPS port (443). In my experience, as long as the bucket name does not conflict with a path used by other applications, the ingress (e.g., Traefik) can handle routing S3 traffic just fine.

Reducing the use of custom ports will make it easier to deploy Nebari in situations where it is important to re-use an existing cluster's ingress.

[Adam-D-Lewis]

We discussed this on an internal call today. The consensus was it we think this should be possible to change. There may be an issue with conda store supporting minio on a subpath, but we agree it can/should be fixed if not. Thanks for calling this out and I'll transfer this to an issue.

[mcg1969]

Since a standard S3 url always includes the bucket name at minimum on the path I suspect conda-store will be fine.

And if the bucket name does not conflict with other API paths you can put the bucket names directly in the ingress so the minio "base" has no subpath

[viniciusdc]

Hi @mcg1969, the discussion was moved to #2848 -- I overlooked the cross-reference not showing up here

[Adam-D-Lewis]

I'm locking conversation if favor of moving further conversation to the issue. Thanks for everyone's comments on this.