5 ms·
> It is surprising that they didn't make it compatible with the S3 API .... The lack of scalable front-end load balancing is shown by the fact that they require
by brianwski 11y ago
> It is surprising that they didn't make it compatible with the S3 API .... The lack of scalable front-end load balancing is shown by the fact that they require users to first make an API call to get an upload URL
And... you answered your own question. :-) We reduce our operating costs
by not having as many load balancers in the datacenter and pushing off
the responsibility to the API. It all comes from our traditional backup
product where we wrote all the software on both sides so we could save
money this way.
With that said, we are actively considering offering an S3 compatible
API for a slightly higher cost (basically what it would cost us to deploy
the larger load balancing tech).
- sagivo 11y agoS3 compatible API is the only reason preventing us from migrating to your cheaper option right now.
- mwcampbell 11y agoI, for one, prefer the directness of not having to go through a front-end proxy. It probably eliminates some failure modes. I think that, instead of Backblaze providing an S3-compatible API, someone should do an open-source S3-compatible front-end for B2, that any interested user can run on a cheap VPS.
- khc 11y agoIf someone writes a jclouds provider for B2, you can then use https://github.com/andrewgaul/s3proxy https://github.com/andrewgaul/s3proxy to interface with it
- toomuchtodo 11y agohttps://libcloud.apache.org/ https://libcloud.apache.org/
- narsil 11y agoI work at https://kloudless.com https://kloudless.com. While not S3-compatible, we offer a similar proxy that provides a single API to multiple storage services such as Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, SharePoint, etc. We've also released support for S3 and Azure and are looking into B2.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]