-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Initial version of the object store taxonomy #135
Initial version of the object store taxonomy #135
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, a couple of small comments about possible minor tweaks to the wording.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @smendis-scottlogic @eddie-knight - LGTM - thank you Sonali
As a group I think we need to agree on standard for numbering the Taxonomy id's.
Once a number system is agreed upon I think it would be good to have this through the upper levels so it is easier to navigate. For example (just using the system @smendis-scottlogic has went with for now): |
Yes I followed the pattern we did in RDMS and was not sure what to put in the place of RDMS. In here I have come up with this numbering system and hoping to present it to the team on the WG meeting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few comments (all minor!) from me.
| CCC-020106 | Availability | High availability for stored objects through replication over multiple availability zones within a region. | | ||
| CCC-020107 | Performance - Transaction Rate Limits | High throughput and low latency for read/write operations under given maximum transaction rate limits. | | ||
| CCC-020108 | Performance - Querying | Ability to perform simple select queries to retrieve only a subset of objects from the bucket. | | ||
| CCC-020109 | Storage Classes | Having different storage classes for frequently and infrequently accessed objects. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This might imply there are only two classes of access: frequent and infrequent. However, there could be a few options between frequent and infrequent!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The 2 main category of classes should be hot (frequently accessed) and cold (infrequently accessed). We see more than 2 storage classes based on pricing. So it's ok?
services/storage/object/taxonomy.md
Outdated
| CCC-020112 | Compliance and Governance | Ability to create locks on objects disabling modification or/and deletion of an object for a given period of time. | | ||
| CCC-020113 | Event Notifications | Publish object level events for creation, deletion and modification of objects allowing users to trigger actions in response. | | ||
| CCC-020114 | Encryption at Rest | Objects are encrypted when storing using encryption keys. | | ||
| CCC-020115 | Encryption in Transit | Objects are encrypted in transit, using SSL/TSL. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This appears to be "always on" - is that the case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Best practice is to use https. But can use http urls. But it is essential for the object store to accept https requests as a core functionality ( thinking of new comers to the cloud service provider world)
9388c0d
to
870e458
Compare
870e458
to
f98ba3e
Compare
@AdrianHammond I'd like feedback on this review process. Here are my thoughts... building toward a suggestion on the final point.
|
@eddie-knight - I am happy to merge on basis we are iterating on this. @mark-rushing FYI |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
approved and merge - likely to require further iteration but a great start by @smendis-scottlogic
No description provided.