Ranged Archive Retrieval #37

jeremyd2019 opened this Issue Jun 1, 2013 · 2 comments


None yet
2 participants

jeremyd2019 commented Jun 1, 2013

I was just looking at the docs for retrieval (Initiate Job) and download (Get Job Output). And just as I was thinking I'd have to write some custom code for this, you added support for multi-segment download.

The other thing I was thinking I'd have to write some custom code for was the "Ranged Archive Retrieval" feature (documented in http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazonglacier/latest/dev/api-initiate-job-post.html, see the RetrievalByteRange parameter). Since I don't see an existing issue for this, nor do I see it in your readme for coming-soon or planned-next-version features, I thought I'd try out this issue system and bring it to your attention.

Keep up the good work!


jeremyd2019 commented Jun 1, 2013

This is important because it seems to be the controlling factor of retrieval costs, after reading this thread: https://forums.aws.amazon.com/message.jspa?messageID=374065#374065


vsespb commented Jun 1, 2013

Hello. Thanks for report.

Yes, I was thinking about range-retrievals. It's indeed important for saving money when restoring data.
Problem that I'll need to organize some workflow for this - storage for temporary files.. new data in Journal, new (sane! and easy to understand) command line options. So, this isn't coming soon :(

As workaround you can split your data to archives with same size and retrieve it one-by-one, with max-number-of-files option (ugly, but it works)

Next priority task now is issue number 30 (and of course bugfixes are in priority over enhancements).

btw multi-segment downloads were implemented in emergency, as it seems sometimes it's impossible to download huge files from Amazon https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=125571&tstart=0

And also I want to mention that coming-soon or planned-next-version sections in documentation now looks outdated to me and should be updated (will update soon and mention this in ChangeLog)

Will leave this ticket open as a placeholder for this enhancement.

vsespb referenced this issue Sep 28, 2013


Encryption #43

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment