6 ms·
Some quick observations: - Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims. - They claim 100% S3
by knobbytires 9y ago
Some quick observations:
- Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims.
- They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET and DELETE did work but that is only 3 of 100’s of API’s.
- Their durability claims are highly suspect. I would want to see a white paper breaking this down.
- Their first round was debt financing.
Why this business model does’t work...
Most people don’t use S3 alone. S3 is a source for other AWS services. That being said, Wasabi becomes a more expensive option as you have a 4 cent egress fee to access data from the rest of your AWS infrastructure. The only place Wasabi becomes cheaper is for those using S3 direct/alone which is a very small subset of S3 usage. AWS is very open about this in white papers, conferences, tech talks, etc.
Wasabi is an economy at scale play that cast way too far a net. There is opportunity in specific vertical markets to sell a solution (object paired with compute) but a pure S3 endpoint will never take substantial marketshare away from AWS.
- panarky 9y agoYes, it's hard to find use cases where Wasabi storage could compete without compute. But S3 originally launched by itself, before EC2. If Wasabi adds a Lambda-like serverless compute layer that could be powerful.
- sigi45 9y agoThere would be still a lot of tooling needed around just lambda like serverless compute layer.
- marcusr 9y agoIt would be a great destination for cloud backup, where one of the concerns is loss of all your backed up data due to malicious action - look at the trouble the hackers had to go to in Mr Robot to take out their offsite tape backups. I'd be more concerned though with the durability of the company rather than their disk systems over the long term though.
- wahnfrieden 9y agoSeparate AWS account with write-only permission to backup S3 objects from production pushed out to the backup account. Enable versioning and glacier in backup account. Lock down backup account credentials appropriately. (And add alerting and periodic fire drills of course.)
- hedora 9y agoAmazon is still a single point of failure when you backup S3 to S3. What if they deploy a silent corruption bug next year?
- someonewhocar3s 9y agoAmazon is so big that it's hard to imagine it failing, rather than you failing. But you can not have Backblaze and Wasabi at a price point that is less than half of S3. Not sure about this Glacier stuff.
- res0nat0r 9y agoAlso you can change your s3 bucket to enable multi-factor delete, which essentially makes it immutable unless you delete using a 2fa device, which shouldn't really happen accidently.
- smaili 9y agoSo would it be a fair assessment to say Wasabi is to S3, as Flask is to Django?
- doubleplusgood 9y agoIt would map better to a Django app rather than Flask
- ibejoeb 9y ago>Their first round was debt financing. Are you suggesting that Wasabi might go away because, maybe, this is not the "traditional" valley model?
- ericflo 9y agoMany, many startups in the valley have raised on convertible notes (aka debt) first.
- Ellie_ 9y agoyou make $27h…good for you! I make up to $85h working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45h to $85h…heres a good example of what i’m doing, lllllllllllllllllllllllWWW.joinmate2.Comlllllllllllllllllll >
- ibejoeb 9y agoIndeed. That's what I don't understand. Nothing about the funding is notable. Convertible notes were all the rage a few years back, too. It was all over the blogs and HN.
- tw04 9y ago>but a pure S3 endpoint will never take substantial marketshare away from AWS. Perhaps in the "dev/ops" world, but S3 as a standalone repository could absolutely work for most enterprises and quite frankly soho users as a backup target. That being said, I have almost no faith this will survive and as such wouldn't trust it with my backups.
- craptocurrency 9y agoYou taking it so seriously. Do you work in Amazon?
- lozenge 9y ago> - Their durability claims are highly suspect. I would want to see a white paper breaking this down. Is there such a white paper for AWS/Azure/GCP? Or are they running on reputation alone?
- rapind 9y agoI've found that most people / companies actually do use S3 alone. Adoption of S3 on it's own is far greater than the rest of their services, at least in my experience.
- gaul 9y ago> They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET and DELETE did work but that is only 3 of 100’s of API’s. Validating claims of S3 compatibility is important. The S3 API has corner cases like and misfeatures like BitTorrent hosting but sometimes vendors omit key features like multi-part upload and v4 signatures. s3-tests[1] is the best way we have to evaluate implementations yet only Ceph and S3Proxy seem to contribute to it. Users should hold vendors' feet to the fire about these these claims. [1] https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests
- someonewhocar3s 9y agoI agree with you on all your critiques. There may be sufficient market for S3-using companies that mostly use storage (sufficient API overlap and much lower costs). But the prices are so low you also grab another category: young companies that want a migration path to S3 but cannot afford it so well yet. And there's business models that'd only work with cheap enough storage - and Wasabi's price is very low indeed.