Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yev here -> thanks! We're constantly working on making the platform better, and copy-file was definitely a widely requested feature! That plus S3 Compatibility, for folks who wanted to integrated with B2 Cloud Storage but didn't have the resources to write code to our B2 Native API.
I've been using B2 to disrupt a bunch of ugly & entrenched vendors in the price sensitive K12 market. Thanks for building it. :)
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
101–110 of 293 posts
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#102Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yev from Backblaze here -> That's correct. We're a founding member of the Bandwidth Alliance and you can find more info about that on our Blog ( https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-and-cloudflare-part... ) or FAQ ( https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217666928-Using... ). May the 4th be with you ;-)
Hey I've been wondering this but are the transaction costs also waived or is it just the bandwidth fees? I feel like if both are gone it'd be hard to make a profit...
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#104It is just awful to see, how everyone tries to reinvent the wheel and not to be compatible with anyone else.
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yev here -> saw my Yev-signal. That's right, Gleb actually answered that question on our blog ( https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-b2-s3-compatible-ap... ) but we're eating the cost. Om nom nom.
Interesting. Implementation wise, is it some form of Minio gateway + hardware?
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#106There is no mention of the durability guarantees that s3 has.
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#107Huh, I thought it already had this! Must have mixed it up with a different object storage service (maybe DigitalOcean?). I've been using B2 for backup storage for some personal projects. It doesn't necessarily do anything "better" than S3 from what I've seen, but never having to log into AWS's dashboard is a reward enough on its own. They do have a command-line client that's a quick PIP install, so you can do somethi…
I really wish the B2 client support uploading file from Unix pipe. It would be nice to be able to archive a huge directory into a tar.bz archive and directly pipe the result into the B2 client without having to save the archive into disk first. Currently I have to save the tar.bz archive to disk first before uploading to balance. Took several hours to do so (huge spinning disks array, not as fast as ssd), while uploa…
b2 upload_file bucket
The argument the command sees will be something like "/dev/fd/42", and the shell will provide the output of tar through that file.Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#108It reminds me a moment three years ago, when I asked Dropbox to make their API similar to Google Drive, as they basically provide the same service. https://github.com/dropbox/dropbox-api-spec/issues/3#issueco... It is just awful to see, how everyone tries to reinvent the wheel and not to be compatible with anyone else.
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#109As a developer that supports B2 (I write ExpanDrive) I think it’s great that they are moving on from an API that doesn’t expose any extra value. That being said, I wish B2 performance was better. Throughput is dramatically slower than S3.
What region are you moving from/to? Last I checked, b2 only exists in datacenters on the US west coast.
Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how many times a month do you have to implement this to be reasonable compared to the cost of the storage?
This is not an implementation cost issue. It was just super hard to make the code perform well. Like you have to manage client sessions on your side and chose optimizations on your side. Like you have to spread things manually. Which is hard to do. Whereas S3 is maximising your bandwidth with no custom code required. It's not really S3 compatibility that was needed but B2 API wasn't good.
There is a price/performance trade-off: B2 has higher request latency than S3, no matter where you are (my experience), but they also are 5x cheaper on storage costs, 10x cheaper on download bandwidth, and have no price gimmicks like minimum object sizes or minimum object lifetimes like many other services (S3 IA for example).
To make up for B2's request latency it is more important to issue requests from multiple threads, especially for short-running requests like removing files.
Another key difference is that B2 always uses SSL whereas S3 can be accessed without SSL with little security impact because each S3 request is individually signed with a secret key. Setting up an SSL connection is more overhead, so another key to performance is to reuse connections.
Both of these suggestions apply to S3 as well, just more to B2 because of the latency difference.