Support for Reduced Redundancy

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. I'm cheap so I'm hacking the source code right now to add the proper header 
for S3 RRS

Please add an option to allow this header to be added to PUT commands:

headers.append("x-amz-storage-class: REDUCED-REDUNDANCY");

Original issue reported on code.google.com by warbirdc...@gmail.com on 17 Jun 2010 at 2:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Oops.  Should have tagged type as Enhancement and I guess I can't change that 
now.

Original comment by warbirdc...@gmail.com on 17 Jun 2010 at 2:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Perhaps you should give a look at this: http://github.com/chregu/s3fs-fork

Original comment by mathieu....@gmail.com on 13 Oct 2010 at 2:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com on 18 Oct 2010 at 10:29

• Changed state: Started
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Incorporated patch from chregu's code stream

Tested the use_rrs=1 option and confirmed that the files in the
bucket are being tagged as using RRS through Amazon's AWS cockpit

Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com on 18 Oct 2010 at 10:40

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Nice!

Original comment by dsmit...@gmail.com on 28 Jan 2011 at 6:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What happens in this case if the reduced redundancy fails?  Do the files 
disappear?  Are they filled with garbage?  What if a file is only partially 
failed?

Original comment by zdw...@gmail.com on 4 Oct 2011 at 3:59