> The costs have increased: renting an additional dedicated server costs more than storing ~100GB at a managed object storage service. But the improved performance and reliability are worth it.
Part of it is that it follows the object storage model, and part of it is just to lock people into AWS once they start working with it.
This is some next-level conspiracy theory stuff. What exactly would the alternative have been in 2006? S3 is one of the most commonly implemented object storage APIs around, so if the goal is lock-in, they're really bad at it.
Well, WebDAV (Document Authoring and Versioning) had been around for 8 years when AWS decided they needed a custom API. And what service provider wasn't trying to lock you into a service by providing a custom API (especially pre-GPT) when one existed already? Assuming they made the choice for a business benefit doesn't require anything close to a conspiracy theory.
And it worked as a moat until other companies and open source projects started cloning the API. See also: Microsoft.
And still need redundant backend giving it as API
I've worked at a few places where single-node K8s "clusters" were frequently used just because they wanted the same API everywhere.
For this project, where you have 120GB of customer data, and thirty requests a second for ~8k objects (0.25MB/s object reads), you’d seem to be able to 100x the throughput vertically scaling on one machine with a file system and an SSD and never thinking about object storage. Would love to see why the complexity
Thanks for sharing this, I wasn't even aware of Versity S3 from my searches and discussions here. I recently migrated my projects from MinIO to Garage, but this seems like another viable option to consider.
_joel•1h ago
poly2it•1h ago
metadat•1h ago
dundercoder•1h ago
sigio•40m ago
dundercoder•36m ago
_joel•33m ago
uroni•54m ago
But a quick grep across versitygw tells me they don't use Sync()/fsync, so not a problem... Any data loss occurring from that is obviously not btrfs fault.
060880•22m ago