apprunner-roadmap
apprunner-roadmap copied to clipboard
aws
Add the ability to use AWS Elastic File System for persistence.
Community Note
- Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
- Please do not leave "+1" or "me too" comments, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do * not help prioritize the request If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment
Tell us about your request What do you want us to build? Most of my apps generate and persist various files. Being able to utilize EFS for “local” storage would make migrating to App Runner something to look at. Without EFS and VPC access, migrating from our current AWS fargate solution to take advantage of the CI/CD integrations with App Runner makes it a non starter
Describe alternatives you've considered A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.
AWS S3 does provide some possibilities but EFS fits the use vase better.
Additional context Anything else we should know?
Attachments If you think you might have additional information that you'd like to include via an attachment, please do - we'll take a look. (Remember to remove any personally-identifiable information.)
Not just EFS but any FUSE-based mount should be possible, right now there isn't even a way to mount via WebDAV
As an AWS SA, I have many customer who want to deploy a lightweight e-commerce website on App Runner, such as Webinar or Magento. Now blocked due to App Runner's inability to support EFS.
Docker has a special startup option to enable mounting of NFS filesystems. Does the "App Runner" container system have such an option available?
Hi @michael-newsrx, Thanks for reaching out. I have responded to your query in repost.aws, let us know if you have any further questions: https://repost.aws/questions/QUc63tZ3CtR1OE4nrafYIP5A/do-app-runner-support-nfs
I'm assessing whether apprunner would be a suitable option for the compute layer of a highly scalable WordPress implementation.
Considering the reference architecture specified in your Best Practices for WordPress on AWS guide ...
... it seems as though apprunner could slot in nicely, in place of the Auto Scaling group of Amazon EC2instances (#6 in that diagram), EXCEPT for the fact that EFS integration is not yet supported.
I'm still trying to understand whether EFS is actually necessary if one is using S3, with or without CloudFront, to serve up static resources, and as the destination for user uploads, which I understand to be supported via WordPress plugin configuration. I haven't noticed any apprunner limitations with respect to integrating with S3 / CloudFront for these purposes.
The Shared storage (Amazon S3 and Amazon EFS) page in the same guide represents the value of EFS thusly ...
The benefit of this architecture is that you don’t need to install plugins and themes on each new instance launch, and you can significantly speed up the installation and recovery of WordPress instances. It is also easier to deploy changes to plugins and themes in WordPress, as outlined in the Deployment Considerations section of this document.
But our initial plan is to bake plugins and themes into our container images, which would seemingly make the value of EFS moot.
In any case, I thought it was worth mentioning in this issue, as lack of EFS support could be a potential blocker to what could be a pretty broadly valuable use case (i.e. WordPress) for the apprunner service.
EFS support is key for migration from Beanstalk apps. Apprunner has lots of advantages over Beanstalk and a shared filesystem is very common requirement for apps that would use services like Beanstalk and Apprunner. We use both Wordpress and Drupal and some custom apps as well. All of them use EFS for persistent storage.
Other than "Scale to zero", this appears to be the most 👍'ed issue to not yet make the Roadmap.
Is there any chance the team could weigh in on whether this issue is more likely to end up as a will or won't fix?
That info can help us when planning which services to use with upcoming implementations.
It definitely has put a major damper into any of our plans for moving beyond an overloaded tomcat server.
On 3/23/23 17:39, RH Becker wrote:
Other than "Scale to zero", this appears to be the most 👍'ed issue to not yet make the Roadmap.
Is there any chance the team could weigh in on whether this issue is more likely to end up as a will or won't fix?
That info can help us when planning which services to use with upcoming implementations.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/aws/apprunner-roadmap/issues/14#issuecomment-1481948158, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHY72KFXLCQ4Y3NUFLHCKLW5S7INANCNFSM45D3ZFOQ. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
is this going to get added to the roadmap soon? It's been a few months since @rhbecker asked the same question.
Any updates for this?
I know with docker you can set it to allow mounting of filesystems as part of the startup and then the container can mount resources like EFS/NFS like a standard system.
Being able to mount -t nfs .... is definitely a need. Not being able to mount NFS on image startup is a block for usage for many scenarios we have. We would really like to discontinue having dedicated TomCat servers, but different apps need to share files over EFS/NFS/FUSE.
Would love to see the ability to use EFS as a Docker volume with Apprunner!
3 years later and still no indication if this will ever be a thing or will never be a thing.
Poor form from the team to not even acknowledge the comment on this highly voted issue.
Folks App Runner is not going to change anything. Someone clearly killed this project before it could compete with other more profitable AWS services, or something like that. I do not recommend use in production.
Can we please get an update on this feature? This feature is on the top of our wishlist and would unlock a lot of uses cases and add the most value out of the other issues in this roadmap. Please consider adding to "Researching"
@backnol-aws @snnles @jsheld @lazarben @scuw19 @amitgupta85 @akshayram-wolverine
Hello, it has been 2 years since #1 was shipped allowing connectivity to private resources in a VPC. Is there any update on when we can expect to mount EFS volumes?
Well said, and I strongly agree! We really need an update on this feature. This is a major blocker.