4 ms·
This whole library wouldn't be necessary if Backbalze implemented a S3 compatible API. They give reasons like being able to load balance on the client for their
by tobias3 8y ago
This whole library wouldn't be necessary if Backbalze implemented a S3 compatible API. They give reasons like being able to load balance on the client for their API (which I do no think is a good reason), but ultimately they just push work from their end to a lot of applications and developers.
Maybe it also has a strategic advantage? Now every product has to announce they support B2 whereas nobody has to announce they support Wasabi, because they support any S3 compatible storage such as AWS S3, Google Cloud Storage or Wasabi.
- ianamartin 8y agoMeh, I can see why they didn't. they aren't really in the same business. It makes sense for followers to implement APIs compatible with market leaders. Riak CS is API compatible with S3, which is nice. But it's literally intended to be an open source version of S3 that you can host and scale yourself. Backblaze is in a different market. They may be finding out that there's overlap and allowing that use. But they are not the same and probably aren't prepared for developers to start using b2 en masse. I think it makes business sense. You want to save some money? Do a little extra work for the cheaper product. Want to save even more money? Roll your own with Riak CS. Cloud services all work along the same spectrum where you pay more for convenience and ease of use, and you pay less up front if you're willing to pay in developer or devops or infrastructure costs. I think this fits in nicely on that spectrum.
- gaul 8y agoObject stores unfortunately innovate on their APIs instead of their implementations. I wrote S3Proxy to bridge the gap between S3 applications and a variety of object stores including B2: https://github.com/gaul/s3proxy https://github.com/gaul/s3proxy