You would have to split them into different buckets
You would have to split them into different buckets
EAs each bucket is "separate" as far as this issue is concerned
Cyeah, I'm not saying hard limit, but its just my observation, where our application almost unusable.
EUnderstood
ESorry about that, we checked all we could but it's just how it is at the moment
CIs this something that they are currently working on? Is there any public Roadmap people could see to track such things?
Ceven if we tried to shard to lowest possible way for our architecture (per client), it will be more 1200 buckets, but errors coming for small traffic of our actual traffic, we didn't even had a chance to put all traffic.
Calso per account 1000 bucket limit is there
EIt's being worked on but there's no public roadmap or ETA
EIt's not a quick fix, its a longer term project
EYes though you can request an increase if need be
UThey charge per operation instead which will cover the cost of any bandwidth they need to in addition to other things.
UI mean AWS is way more mature so can scale better. If you look up a bit a single bucket on R2 can do about 300ish concurrent. But also AWS just has really high profit margins.
UYou could shard across many buckets instead.
HThought I definitely would not recommend using KV to cache images from R2. It effectively generates double the cost for basically the same performance. If you do find that KV is faster for your usecase, and all your images fit in KV, then you can just store them in KV, omitting R2 entirely
DCouldn’t he use public buckets with caching and a WAF HMAC on top?
DJust note that caching will not work if you use presigned URLs on R2.