Just keep in mind that your durability is limited to the underlying
FileSystem implementation. I don't think sync is supported on S3A. But
also, it may not be necessary? I'm not really sure about what kinds of
guarantees S3A offers when you close the file after writing.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 6:47 PM McClure, Bruce MR 2 via user <
[email protected]> wrote:

> *UNOFFICIAL*
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 April 2026 7:37 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Cc:* McClure, Bruce MR 2 <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: -EXT-Updates regarding Running Accumulo on AWS s3
> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>
>
>  *⚠*  *EXTERNAL EMAIL: *Do not click any links or open any attachments
> unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.  *⚠**.*
>
> Bruce,
>
>
>
> We have been running Accumulo on S3 for some time with petabytes of data
> using the S3A connector. It's not perfect due to the S3A connector but it
> works. We haven't benchmarked it but generally it goes the job done. Our
> workload is feeding a user interface with spatial data through GeoServer
> OGC Services.
>
>
>
> -Hulbs
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* McClure, Bruce MR 2 via user <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2026 00:12
> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* McClure, Bruce MR 2 <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* -EXT-Updates regarding Running Accumulo on AWS s3
> [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
> WARNING:  This message is from an external source.  Evaluate the message
> carefully BEFORE clicking on links or opening attachments.
>
> *UNOFFICIAL*
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am just wondering if there is any update since the advice in 2019 that
> said Accumulo can run on S3 as long as the root and metadata tables are in
> HDFS?
>
>
>
> Has any performance benchmarking been done comparing Accumulo running on
> S3 versus HDFS?  (for comparable hardware/networking configuration).
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Bruce.
>
>
>

Reply via email to