Is paragraph 2 of the post not upfront enough? I clearly stated our goals of the project, and the fact that this also saves us through the incident was a great side effect. But I never set out to mitigate S3 failures like this.
> Is paragraph 2 of the post not upfront enough? I clearly stated our goals of the project
That paragraph says your connection to S3 is slow. Your solution doesn't fix general S3 slowness. However, it does make S3 slowness less of a problem for your application.
That's why it would have been useful to describe how your application accesses S3, so others can quickly determine if their applications would also benefit from a similar solution.
For example: "90% of our S3 reads are of blobs that were read in the last 30 days."
Many applications might upload data to S3, then quickly download it for processing. For those applications, this solution won't work.
> But I never set out to mitigate S3 failures like this.
We know. It's just that some people might read the title and think this is a more general solution than it is. OP was just warning people against that.
