4 ms·
Ok, so if you have lots of 64 kB files they're all PUT separately, using 15625 PUTs/GB (i.e., $0.15/GB)? I guess that's not too bad. I guess I could ask you to
by sreitshamer 17y ago
Ok, so if you have lots of 64 kB files they're all PUT separately, using 15625 PUTs/GB (i.e., $0.15/GB)? I guess that's not too bad.
I guess I could ask you to choose the threshold instead of picking 64k, but generally I've tried to choose reasonable defaults so that the user doesn't have to make those kinds of decisions.
Good to see someone who believes in openness. (How about the source code, so that people can confirm that you're doing what the spec says?)
Well, you could actually write your own code to read the files, since the format is open.
That's the SHA1 hash of the encrypted data, right?
It's the SHA1 of the contents of the object, and the object is encrypted data, so yes.
- statictype 17y ago>Well, you could actually write your own code to read the files, since the format is open. I think the parent's point was not vendor lock-in but rather, that publishing the source code to your particular implementation would lend more credibility to it since anyone can inspect it and verify that it does what it says it does.
- sreitshamer 17y agoRight, but with Arq, unlike most online backup offerings, you have direct access to the files being stored online (they're in your S3 account). So you can verify that Arq says what it does because you can look at the results.
- DavidSJ 17y agoWith source code, you can reason about edge cases. No matter how many tests you do, you can never catch all of these.