Skip to content
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

Add CloudFront Support #6258

Closed
bmbouter opened this issue Feb 4, 2025 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6310
Closed

Add CloudFront Support #6258

bmbouter opened this issue Feb 4, 2025 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6310
Labels

Comments

@bmbouter
Copy link
Member

bmbouter commented Feb 4, 2025

CloudFront can "front" an S3 bucket making it geo-distributed. See the docs here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/GettingStarted.SimpleDistribution.html

As a user, I should be able to configure AWS correctly, and then tell Pulp's Domain storage configuration whatever it needs to know to have users receive content from the CloudFront Distribution instead of S3. The entire domain would be GeoDistributed, not individual Repos.

@bmbouter
Copy link
Member Author

bmbouter commented Feb 4, 2025

My understanding is Pulp will interact with S3 is the same way. The only difference (that I can tell) is the Content App when directing users to S3 will instead direct traffic to the CloudFront distribution instead of S3. The Domain storage config in Pulp will need more info to perform that redirect. Also we need to make sure the signing features don't regress.

We'll also need docs.

We'll also need to determine how we'll test this part of the feature set.

@mdellweg
Copy link
Member

We'll also need to determine how we'll test this part of the feature set.

Assuming that django-storages does the heavy lifting, and we only care about getting the configuration right, that is exactly what we should test.

https://django-storages.readthedocs.io/en/latest/backends/amazon-S3.html#cloudfront-signed-urls

decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
decko added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2025
Also, adds a simple test to check if the options needed to configure
AWS CloudFront are valid.

Closes #6258
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants