I have set up a Prefect backend server on a remote machine. I was able to connect local agents from different other machines to the server by modifying the config.toml in the .prefect folder:
[server]
endpoint = "http://server_ip:port/graphql"
[server.ui]
apollo_url = "http://server_ip:port/graphql"
As it stands, I can create a local agent on each machine, register flows and run them on the respective machines. Now I would like to have a central computer where I can develop and register my flows.
Unfortunately, when I run a flow on Machine B, registered on Machine A, I get a "Module not Found" error message. I have read that the error comes from machines only looking for the flows in their local storage.
Without using Git, GCS, etc., is it possible to use, for example, a NAS where all flows are stored and which all machines can use to access the flows?
if so, how must flows, agents, and storage be configured? Unfortunately, I have not found any good documentation on this.
Many applications use Docker agents and have similar problems, or use remote storage directly.
There is no native NAS storage interface available in the core library, but we provide recipes and guidance on how you may solve the ModuleNorFoundError - check out this Discourse wiki page which dives into how you may solve that
I was able to find a solution to my answer. The prerequisite is shared storage (e.g. a NAS), which is accessible on all machines under the same path. In this storage, the flows are stored in the form of .py files. Flows and used local Agents do not need any special preparations.
I simply registered my flows with
prefect register --project "PREFECT_PROJECT_NAME" --path "PATH_TO_.py"
in CLI.
I was able to deploy all my flows from machine A and execute them from/schedule them on any other machine
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a way to connect to an Amazon S3 bucket with FTP or SFTP rather than the built-in Amazon file transfer interface in the AWS console? Seems odd that this isn't a readily available option.
There are three options.
You can use a native Amazon Managed SFTP service (aka AWS Transfer for SFTP), which is easier to set up.
Or you can mount the bucket to a file system on a Linux server and access the files using the SFTP as any other files on the server (which gives you greater control).
Or you can just use a (GUI) client that natively supports S3 protocol (what is free).
Managed SFTP Service
In your Amazon AWS Console, go to AWS Transfer for SFTP and create a new server.
In SFTP server page, add a new SFTP user (or users).
Permissions of users are governed by an associated AWS role in IAM service (for a quick start, you can use AmazonS3FullAccess policy).
The role must have a trust relationship to transfer.amazonaws.com.
For details, see my guide Setting up an SFTP access to Amazon S3.
Mounting Bucket to Linux Server
Just mount the bucket using s3fs file system (or similar) to a Linux server (e.g. Amazon EC2) and use the server's built-in SFTP server to access the bucket.
Install the s3fs
Add your security credentials in a form access-key-id:secret-access-key to /etc/passwd-s3fs
Add a bucket mounting entry to fstab:
<bucket> /mnt/<bucket> fuse.s3fs rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other 0 0
For details, see my guide Setting up an SFTP access to Amazon S3.
Use S3 Client
Or use any free "FTP/SFTP client", that's also an "S3 client", and you do not have setup anything on server-side. For example, my WinSCP or Cyberduck.
WinSCP has even scripting and .NET/PowerShell interface, if you need to automate the transfers.
Update
S3 now offers a fully-managed SFTP Gateway Service for S3 that integrates with IAM and can be administered using aws-cli.
There are theoretical and practical reasons why this isn't a perfect solution, but it does work...
You can install an FTP/SFTP service (such as proftpd) on a linux server, either in EC2 or in your own data center... then mount a bucket into the filesystem where the ftp server is configured to chroot, using s3fs.
I have a client that serves content out of S3, and the content is provided to them by a 3rd party who only supports ftp pushes... so, with some hesitation (due to the impedance mismatch between S3 and an actual filesystem) but lacking the time to write a proper FTP/S3 gateway server software package (which I still intend to do one of these days), I proposed and deployed this solution for them several months ago and they have not reported any problems with the system.
As a bonus, since proftpd can chroot each user into their own home directory and "pretend" (as far as the user can tell) that files owned by the proftpd user are actually owned by the logged in user, this segregates each ftp user into a "subdirectory" of the bucket, and makes the other users' files inaccessible.
There is a problem with the default configuration, however.
Once you start to get a few tens or hundreds of files, the problem will manifest itself when you pull a directory listing, because ProFTPd will attempt to read the .ftpaccess files over, and over, and over again, and for each file in the directory, .ftpaccess is checked to see if the user should be allowed to view it.
You can disable this behavior in ProFTPd, but I would suggest that the most correct configuration is to configure additional options -o enable_noobj_cache -o stat_cache_expire=30 in s3fs:
-o stat_cache_expire (default is no expire)
specify expire time(seconds) for entries in the stat cache
Without this option, you'll make fewer requests to S3, but you also will not always reliably discover changes made to objects if external processes or other instances of s3fs are also modifying the objects in the bucket. The value "30" in my system was selected somewhat arbitrarily.
-o enable_noobj_cache (default is disable)
enable cache entries for the object which does not exist. s3fs always has to check whether file(or sub directory) exists under object(path) when s3fs does some command, since s3fs has recognized a directory which does not exist and has files or subdirectories under itself. It increases ListBucket request and makes performance bad. You can specify this option for performance, s3fs memorizes in stat cache that the object (file or directory) does not exist.
This option allows s3fs to remember that .ftpaccess wasn't there.
Unrelated to the performance issues that can arise with ProFTPd, which are resolved by the above changes, you also need to enable -o enable_content_md5 in s3fs.
-o enable_content_md5 (default is disable)
verifying uploaded data without multipart by content-md5 header. Enable to send "Content-MD5" header when uploading a object without multipart posting. If this option is enabled, it has some influences on a performance of s3fs when uploading small object. Because s3fs always checks MD5 when uploading large object, this option does not affect on large object.
This is an option which never should have been an option -- it should always be enabled, because not doing this bypasses a critical integrity check for only a negligible performance benefit. When an object is uploaded to S3 with a Content-MD5: header, S3 will validate the checksum and reject the object if it's corrupted in transit. However unlikely that might be, it seems short-sighted to disable this safety check.
Quotes are from the man page of s3fs. Grammatical errors are in the original text.
Answer from 2014 for the people who are down-voting me:
Well, S3 isn't FTP. There are lots and lots of clients that support S3, however.
Pretty much every notable FTP client on OS X has support, including Transmit and Cyberduck.
If you're on Windows, take a look at Cyberduck or CloudBerry.
Updated answer for 2019:
AWS has recently released the AWS Transfer for SFTP service, which may do what you're looking for.
Or spin Linux instance for SFTP Gateway in your AWS infrastructure that saves uploaded files to your Amazon S3 bucket.
Supported by Thorntech
Amazon has released SFTP services for S3, but they only do SFTP (not FTP or FTPES) and they can be cost prohibitive depending on your circumstances.
I'm the Founder of DocEvent.io, and we provide FTP/S Gateways for your S3 bucket without having to spin up servers or worry about infrastructure.
There are also other companies that provide a standalone FTP server that you pay by the month that can connect to an S3 bucket through the software configuration, for example brickftp.com.
Lastly there are also some AWS Marketplace apps that can help, here is a search link. Many of these spin up instances in your own infrastructure - this means you'll have to manage and upgrade the instances yourself which can be difficult to maintain and configure over time.
WinSCp now supports S3 protocol
First, make sure your AWS user with S3 access permissions has an “Access key ID” created. You also have to know the “Secret access key”. Access keys are created and managed on Users page of IAM Management Console.
Make sure New site node is selected.
On the New site node, select Amazon S3 protocol.
Enter your AWS user Access key ID and Secret access key
Save your site settings using the Save button.
Login using the Login button.
Filezilla just released a Pro version of their FTP client. It connects to S3 buckets in a streamlined FTP like experience. I use it myself (no affiliation whatsoever) and it works great.
As other posters have pointed out, there are some limitations with the AWS Transfer for SFTP service. You need to closely align requirements. For example, there are no quotas, whitelists/blacklists, file type limits, and non key based access requires external services. There is also a certain overhead relating to user management and IAM, which can get to be a pain at scale.
We have been running an SFTP S3 Proxy Gateway for about 5 years now for our customers. The core solution is wrapped in a collection of Docker services and deployed in whatever context is needed, even on-premise or local development servers. The use case for us is a little different as our solution is focused data processing and pipelines vs a file share. In a Salesforce example, a customer will use SFTP as the transport method sending email, purchase...data to an SFTP/S3 enpoint. This is mapped an object key on S3. Upon arrival, the data is picked up, processed, routed and loaded to a warehouse. We also have fairly significant auditing requirements for each transfer, something the Cloudwatch logs for AWS do not directly provide.
As other have mentioned, rolling your own is an option too. Using AWS Lightsail you can setup a cluster, say 4, of $10 2GB instances using either Route 53 or an ELB.
In general, it is great to see AWS offer this service and I expect it to mature over time. However, depending on your use case, alternative solutions may be a better fit.
I need to create a backup of my emails which sometime in the future I can restore by uploading them to a new server. Not synchronize, but create a backup.
Also, at the moment there's only one server which I access via IMAP, meaning, there's no other server I can synchronize my emails with. When I need to restore them from a backup, there'll be also only one server -- a new one. This also implies that I can't use synchronization.
If this goal requires building a custom application and knowledge of IMAP protocol -- that's ok.
How can I do that?
We are currently working in a project where we use Orion ContextBroker to store information from different sensors and Wirecloud to show them in a web page.
We want to store historical data from these sensors in order to show them in a graph. I have looked around the Fiware documentation and they recommend to store the data in a Cosmos instance of Fi-lab, through Cygnus.
The thing is that we would like to store that historical data in a local Hadoop based server we have in our company, not in Cosmos, because we are running this project in a local net where we don't have internet access, and also to have that information stored in our local server.
Is it possible to configure Cygnus to redirect the output data to my file system? If so, which files must be configured in order to achieve this?
Thank you
The answer is yes. Cygnus is meant to persist context data in whatever HDFS-based filesystem (as the one used by Cosmos), thus nothing special has to be done when configuring Cygnus.
If you download the lastest version (0.7.0 at the moment of writting this), you will need to configure:
A cygnus_instance_default.conf file from cygnus_instance.conf.template. This is the instance configuration. From 0.7.1 is possible to have multiple instance configurations that are run in a parallel way, and they all have to called cygnus_instance_<whatever>.conf.
A agent.conf file from agent.conf.template. This is the Flume specific configuration that you will find in the README.md.
I have a C# application that enables users to write a test and execute it (client). It also supports distributed execution over multiple machines using a central server and agents on said machines.
The agent is practically a duplication of the original execution ability but it is in a standalone solution.
We'd like to refactor that because:
Code duplication.
If a user will try to write and execute on a machine that runs an agent, there will be a problematic collision.
I'm considering 2 options:
Move this execution to a service, that both client and agent will use. I mean a service that will run locally, not a web service.
Merge client and agent - we'll have no agent, but the server will communicate with the client as an agent instead.
I have no experience in working with services. Are there any known advantages/disadvantages to either options?
A common library shared by both client and agent sounds more appropriate to allow simple cases such as just using the client and avoid the overhead of having to set up an extra service locally.