AWS Setup

[jeansantos]

Good day!

I have a few OTRS instances running on AWS, and I'm facing a performance issue on the database.
After some troubleshooting, the issue is the article storage (Kernel::System::Ticket::Article::Backend::MIMEBase), which we set to the database and not the Filesystem.
So I'm considering this change, but I'm trying to figure out if the EFS or EBS would be the best storage for larger setups as EBS is faster, but EFS is more fault tolerant (as replicates between AZs).
Does anyone have experience with setting UP a High Available OTRS on AWS?
I would appreciate any input on this; many thanks in advance.

[owi]

Both EFS and EBS are viable, it depends on your needs and preferences.

What about S3 mounted as a filesystem? In my experience, the OTRS Article storage is mostly "Write Once Read Never". An S3 bucket with an intelligent storage class is probably the most cost effective solution for that.

[root]

the OTRS Article storage is mostly "Write Once Read Never".

Hi,

So, you never access your attachments again?

- Roy

[owi]

So, you never access your attachments again?

I said "mostly"

99% of my attachments are used at most once, then fill up the archive forever. That's why I suggested S3. It can swallow huge amounts of data at very little cost, as long as you don't retrieve it.

[bschmalhofer]

What about S3 mounted as a filesystem? In my experience, the OTRS Article storage is mostly "Write Once Read Never". An S3 bucket with an intelligent storage class is probably the most cost effective solution for that.

Another option is to create a dedicated article storage backend for S3. Full file system support is not really needed as articles are written and read as complete objects, not line per line. In the long run, streaming large attachments directly from S3 to the browser might also be a nice feature.