You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I understand this is a feature request and questions should be posted in the Community Forum
I searched issues and couldn’t find anything (or linked relevant results below)
Problem
Scaleway's S3-compatile Object Storage has different number of parts limit. While AWS S3's limit is 10.000, Scaleway's is 1.000. I've reported a bug to them but I don't expect anything to change at their side.
This is a problem because @tus/s3-store calculates required part size for given file size to make sure it does not exceed this limit.
Server rejects part upload with HTTP status 400 and message InvalidArgument: Part number must be an integer between 1 and 1000, inclusive.
I would like to specify to @tus/s3-store what limits are imposed by the server, in this case maxMultipartParts.
Alternatives
I can reduce the impact of this problem by increasing minPartSize to a larger value (e.g. 50MB).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
mitjap
changed the title
@tus/s3-store: add support to specify S3 server configuration
@tus/s3-store: add support to specify maxMultipartPartsFeb 5, 2025
Initial checklist
Problem
Scaleway's S3-compatile Object Storage has different number of parts limit. While AWS S3's limit is
10.000
, Scaleway's is1.000
. I've reported a bug to them but I don't expect anything to change at their side.This is a problem because
@tus/s3-store
calculates required part size for given file size to make sure it does not exceed this limit.Server rejects part upload with HTTP status 400 and message
InvalidArgument: Part number must be an integer between 1 and 1000, inclusive
.AWS S3 documentation:
Scaleway Object Storage documentation:
Solution
I would like to specify to
@tus/s3-store
what limits are imposed by the server, in this casemaxMultipartParts
.Alternatives
I can reduce the impact of this problem by increasing
minPartSize
to a larger value (e.g.50MB
).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: