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

AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 158 posts

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#101

Post by Spooky23 »

beachy wrote: post #96
scarface74 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is developer time. Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. A small company has even more of reason to want as many managed services as possible. You can avoid hiring netops if you both have a third party managed service provider to manage your network and you have developers/architects who know enough to fill in the gaps.

> Nothing about managed services is ever less expensive if you don’t account for developer/Devops/netops time saved. I literally can't parse this.

Translation: Puppies are cheap, but they eat and poop.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#102

Post by Godel_unicode »

rodgerd wrote: post #47
dested wrote: post #3

There are a handful of services out there that do this, I know because I've needed it on multiple occasions. It's nice that Amazon is providing it in house now, but it just reminds of me the last time I went to re:invent and walked through the vendor area and thought about how many of these companies are four dev cycles away from Amazon producing a baked in competitor. Hard to make a B To B Amazon tool these days.

Amazon are like pre-lawsuit Microsoft and pre-decree IBM: you exist on their platform until you make enough money that they decide that your profit margin is their business opportunity.

I'm always interested in the selection bias here; Amazon et al do this to plenty of companies that are not using their platform as well. It would be more accurate to say that being an AWS vendor doesn't provide you with added protection from them competing with you.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#103

Post by ryanSrich »

Spooky23 wrote: post #97
ryanSrich wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s quite literally AWS’s playbook. Fill the vendor hall with tech, learn it, see what sticks and then crush it. This is why I’m bullish on cloud agnostic tech. These practices don’t typically fair well in the enterprise space. This is why companies like MSFT are interesting to me. They partner and rarely kill. Amazon is the complete opposite.

I wouldn’t count on that. These hyperscale players don’t have the time to worry about their “friends”. Example: Do you really think that the warm embrace of VMware Horizon and Citrix on Azure is the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship?

That’s a fair point, but I would look to specific markets instead of tech to see where AWS and Amazon might run into issues.

Specifically within healthcare. You think large Pharma companies will use AWS after the pill pocket acquisition? Do you think once Amazon.com starts listing prosthetics large life sciences companies will run on AWS? What about providers? Do you think health systems will choose AWS as their cloud once Amazon launches their version of KP?

I don’t see Azure or GCP getting into these specific markets.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#104

Post by Spooky23 »

viggity wrote: post #4

We currently pay $250/month through some small vendor for hipaa compliant sftp hosting (that we transfer a whopping 50kb on a weekly basis). I always felt like it was a rip off, but azure/aws didn't have their own version. And I'm loathe to manage a VM. PaaS is my sugar bear. My eyes lit up when I saw this. We're an azure shop, but I'm not afraid to use AWS for limited cases. Then I saw - $.30/hr (so, $214/mo). Reall…

People spend millions on stupid stuff like this. The money saved on audit response would justify the service alone.

Frankly, Amazon let a lot of revenue go here — I could think of a few orgs that wouldn’t skip a beat about spending 100x.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#105

Post by icebraining »

hemancuso wrote: post #60
dagss wrote: post #37

An alternative to doing file based SFTP is to just treat SFTP like an API. A company I work for implemented an SFTP service where every operation simply translates to some SQL DB lookup. And a file download kicks off a larger SQL query and generates the report on the fly, streaming the result straight through to the SFTP client. Works great! SFTP can be an API just like HTTP. Under the hood the protocol is reasonably…

What if you open an SFTP handle, and then write 5 bytes halfway through a 20 GB file and close the handle? How do you translate that?

Seems similar to if someone sends an HTTP method to an URL that doesn't support it. Just return an error.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#106

Post by narsil »

We ended up implementing a REST API endpoint for SFTP to provide an easy way for web apps to transfer content without having to speak the FTP protocol: https://kloudless.com/products/file-storage/

I can see this being valuable for apps to get user content into S3 more efficiently from the server-side rather than funneling it through hosted servers. The one caveat is programmatic user management, which I'm sure is possible.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#107

Post by mr_toad »

Crontab wrote: post #99
qwerty456127 wrote: post #56

> SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) It's SSH File Transfer Protocol. When you say Secure File Transfer Protocol many people think about FTP over SSL if you don't emphasize it's about SSH.

I've never even heard of FTP over SSL. Is that something that never became popular due to the existence of OpenSSH?

Microsoft used it and promoted it. I never understood why they took so long to support ssh.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#108

Post by rrix2 »

hemancuso wrote: post #60
dagss wrote: post #37

An alternative to doing file based SFTP is to just treat SFTP like an API. A company I work for implemented an SFTP service where every operation simply translates to some SQL DB lookup. And a file download kicks off a larger SQL query and generates the report on the fly, streaming the result straight through to the SFTP client. Works great! SFTP can be an API just like HTTP. Under the hood the protocol is reasonably…

What if you open an SFTP handle, and then write 5 bytes halfway through a 20 GB file and close the handle? How do you translate that?

From parent: "Depends a lot on the usecase of course."

The usecase that I see most often of SFTP (and hinted at in the parent's problem description) is generating one-off reports for third parties, or passing data to vendors who are stuck in the 90s, like financial services companies.

It's almost always read only (or read and delete), in which case implementing an API like this is pretty straightforward. Log unsupported commands perhaps and decide if you want to implement them later.

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#109

Post by lsh »

We use Cloudgates for our FTP/SFTP to S3 interface: https://cloudgates.net/pricing

They're cheap, stable and dead simple to set up. This offering from AWS looks attractive, but at $.30/hour for the server makes it $219/mo vs $25/mo.

edit: just a satisfied customer

Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3

#110

Post by mrkstu »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #102
rodgerd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon are like pre-lawsuit Microsoft and pre-decree IBM: you exist on their platform until you make enough money that they decide that your profit margin is their business opportunity.

I'm always interested in the selection bias here; Amazon et al do this to plenty of companies that are not using their platform as well. It would be more accurate to say that being an AWS vendor doesn't provide you with added protection from them competing with you.

No, you are also directly providing them with metrics if you use their platform- whereas Azure/Google aren't going to turn around and start selling a competing widget if you use their infrastructure.
Post reply on HN