Not sure if this is considered a feature request or bug. As it is a nice to have sort of thing, I'll list it as a feature request.

My S3 bucket was getting a bit cluttered, so I created a folder for my backups. Let's say the bucket name is 'mydomain.org' and the folder is '/backups'.

Using cyberduck, I can view and place backups into this folder. Checking the permissions, the backups that are there have owner rw access. The folder has the same owner and has rwx owner permissions.

In destinations, if I don't specify the folder as part of the S3 bucket name, when I then list files in the bucket, it shows all backups, including the ones in the folder. The ones in the folder show up as 'backup/backupfilename'.

If I append the folder name to the s3 bucketname as 'mydomain.org/backups', B/M won't read or write from it.

B/M to S3 is wonderful and quite useful as is. It would just be nice if it accepted the folder as well.

Comments

leenwebb’s picture

leenwebb commented

Just adding that I'd also like to be able to use s3 folders for my backups! Especially since there is a 100-bucket-limit per s3 account, and that pesky "unique across the whole system" requirement for bucket names.

ronan’s picture

ronan commented
Status: Active » Fixed

This will be available in the next dev when it rolls.

jcmarco’s picture

jcmarco commented
Status: Fixed » Needs work

The include destinations.bam_server.inc file is lost:

Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required './sites/all/modules/backup_migrate/includes/destinations.bam_server.inc' (include_path='xxxxx') in xxxxxx\sites\all\modules\backup_migrate\includes\filters.backup_restore.inc on line 142

kim.pepper’s picture

kim.pepper
Primary language English
Location 🏄‍♂️🇦🇺Sydney, Australia
commented

subscribing

e0ipso’s picture

e0ipso
Primary language Catalan
Location Can Picafort
commented

subscribing

younggeezer’s picture

younggeezer commented

Just throwing in my $0.02.

I tried s3 backup today, attempting somehow to trick B&M into using a folder. I couldn't find any combination of modifying the profile file name, nor destination bucket name, that would let me successfully write to a folder. A bucket or nothing.

And, actually, that's a bit scary -- I haven't tested it, but specifying an existing bucket might get non-backup files deleted if the 'keep' count exceeds the number of files for scheduled backups.

leenwebb’s picture

leenwebb commented

FWIW, after a bit of investigation it's my understanding that S3 itself doesn't support folders -- folders are actually just complex filenames that file browsers render as separate folders. But really they are all just filenames in the same bucket, and so the concern in #6 is a real one -- other files in your bucket will be deleted if the 'keep count' is exceeded. Sadly, I speak from experience on that one. :)

[The last time I looked into this was a month or so ago so who knows if S3 has changed folder support since then.]

ronan’s picture

ronan commented
Status: Needs work » Fixed

@leenwebb, @younggeezer

The latest dev build should have an option for 'subfolders' in S3. Try it out and see if it meets your needs (but test it on a bucket that does not contain critical data).

@leenwebb:
You are right about s3 not supporting folders. The latest dev supports the sort of pseudo-directories that is common in s3 implementations (name prefixes with / in them). Hopefully it will not delete any files that do not have the specified name prefix (in the fake folder) but it is a dev version and should only be tested in buckets that do not contain data you can't afford to lose. If you do have issues please let me know.

Marking 'fixed' again, because the issue in #3 has been fixed in the mean time.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.