Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wasabi – Simple storage solution

wasabi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#141

Post by hedora »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #100
marcusr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It 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.

Separate 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.)

Amazon is still a single point of failure when you backup S3 to S3.

What if they deploy a silent corruption bug next year?

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#142

Post by throwaway2016a »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #140
throwaway2016a wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this doesn't add value but if you think CloudFront is expensive you should see how much CDNs used to cost before CloudFront came around. The fact it doesn't change you for the bandwidth between S3 and CloudFront is key too. Try pricing it against Google https://cloud.google.com/cdn/pricing and Level3 http://www.level3.com/en/products/content-delivery-network/ As someone mentioned, CloudFlare initial seems chea…

CloudFront is one of the slowest CDNs out there. CloudFlare is okay as long as you pay $200/month. That's nothing in the CDN world. Amazon wants $600/month just to deploy a SSL cert on CloudFront.

> Amazon wants $600/month just to deploy a SSL cert on CloudFront

That's a bit misleading Amazon SSL is free on CloudFront if you are OK with SNI. And almost every is now... browsers without SNI are virtually none. The only browser with any market use that does not support it is IE 8 on Windows XP!

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#144

Post by ibejoeb »

ericflo wrote: post #103
ibejoeb wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Their first round was debt financing. Are you suggesting that Wasabi might go away because, maybe, this is not the "traditional" valley model?

Many, many startups in the valley have raised on convertible notes (aka debt) first.

Indeed. 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.

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#145

Post by hedora »

fasteo wrote: post #45
throwaway2016a wrote: post #36

> Wasabi is built to be 100% AWS S3 bit-compatible (same AWS API constructs for storage & identity management). No need to change your S3-compatible application when using Wasabi I often wonder how this works. With the whole Sun lawsuit with Google over the Java API making a clone of another platforms API sounds dangerous. I'm curious what HN thinks. I've wanted to have a "compatibility layer" that mimics my competit…

This. Would love to hear more about this.

You can't copyright a softwarw API in the US because they are considered purely functional (in the mechanical sense). Take flathead screwdrivers as an example.

You can't copyright the dimensions of the blade head, since they're just the dimensions of the screw slot, and the only thing the copyright does is harm interoperability between screws and screwdrivers. You can copyright some other aspects of the screwdriver design, and if screwdrivers were a new thing, you could patent the idea of a screwdriver.

This is why the Java case hinged on a former sun employee literally cutting and pasting method implementations he wrote at Sun into Android's implementation while he worked at google. /double-face-palm

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#146

Post by skuhn »

lozenge wrote: post #137
skuhn wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think factors beyond the storage algorithm are pretty important to consider when thinking about storing data that's important to your business. To your specific point though: 1. Amazon claims 99.999999999% durability of objects over a year. 2. I store 1EB of data with an object size of 4MB for a year (so 250,000,000,000 objects). 3. I can expect to lose 250 objects in a year, or 1GB. Now to my experience: I have st…

AFAIK, S3 only provides notification when reduced redundancy objects are lost, not regular objects. How did you detect your data loss?

All of my objects used standard redundancy. My recollection is that regardless of object class, you will get a 405 error if you try to fetch an object that has been lost.

I didn't use SNS notifications at the time (which might only work for reduced redundancy).

So that left two options: find out when attempting to fetch the object, or run bookkeeping jobs against the object catalog to periodically spider the data and ferret out any objects that are lost.

The second option may be a tad nicer, but it is also more complex and more expensive and the end result is the same either way.

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#147

Post by gaul »

knobbytires wrote: post #34

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…

> 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

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#148

Post by jjeaff »

tomovo wrote: post #70

Wouldn't it be funny if this was just a market test/exercise, using actual S3 as a backend, just to see if it gets any traction before building own HW/SW solution?

Intriguing idea. With the 1tb minimum, it's conceivable that you could actually turn a profit doing that.

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#149

Post by sdwisely »

sreitshamer wrote: post #47
ernsheong wrote: post #6

There's also B2 ( https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html ), which is I think the cheapest of them all. UPDATE: Well, egress is cheaper. B2 is $0.005/GB storage with $0.02/GB egress. But one thing to consider is that B2 storage is located within one single datacenter. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated, but am in the process of deciding to use B2.)

We just added B2 support to Arq Backup. It's been working great for us so far.

Thanks for Arq, it's a fantastic product. Any chance of an option to migrate from one source to another?

In the process of moving from one provider to another and it's pretty tedious getting it all in sync while I manually move from one to the other while still backing up to the previous provider until the move is complete.

It's going to be a bit of a process over the next few weeks :(

Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution

#150

Post by jjeaff »

copperx wrote: post #109
ricardobeat wrote: post #29

Lacking comparison with their closest competitor B2 ($0.005/GB, cheaper outbound at $0.02/GB). Also no information on DC location and zones.

They claim to have multiple data centers. It sounds fishy to me. I would like to see some pics / info af their setup before I trust them with 1 byte of my data.

My guess is that their data centers look exactly like this

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/

Post reply on HN