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

Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

backblaze.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 293 posts

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#261

Post by Dylan16807 »

mikehearn wrote: post #86
heipei wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cloudflare ToS explicitly exclude that use-case. 2.8 Limitation on Serving Non-HTML Content The Service is offered primarily as a platform to cache and serve web pages and websites. Unless explicitly included as a part of a Paid Service purchased by you, you agree to use the Service solely for the purpose of serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other functionally equivalent applications and render…

In a previous HN post [1] where someone wrote up how to use B2 as an image host, the Cloudflare CEO chimed in and addressed rule 2.8 specifically, saying if Cloudflare workers are used for URL prettifying and redirecting, a different ToS is applied and that use-case would be fine. Does that mean your video use-case would also be fine? I have no idea. An HN comment from the CEO doesn't seem like it would hold up if Cl…

Sounds like workers are fine in general, especially on the non-free tier that only increases the budget by $5 a month.

That covers 10 million requests, which could each be 10MB chunks, or 512MB cached files, or possibly larger.

(A raw mp4 needs about 3 requests to start plus one per seek.)

But I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't scale to enormous amounts of data.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#262

Post by Dylan16807 »

ADefenestrator wrote: post #254
toohotatopic wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't there a startup on hn some weeks ago that used a crypto mining approach to server management that was much cheaper?

Disclaimer - Backblaze employee here, but just speaking for myself: It was.. sort of cheaper. They didn't actually build the servers, and as described the server wouldn't work (onboard SATA didn't support port multipliers, lack of ECC would probably cause problems in practice, bit hand-wavey on power/space/network/manpower costs, etc). The goal of the article was to get other people to build cheap storage and put it…

With the client responsible for chunking, redundancy, and error correction, I don't think the lack of ECC really matters for their use case. The rest of the issues are more important.

Edit: The motherboard they picked does support ECC memory, anyway. In general ASRock models do.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#263

Post by TickleSteve »

ing33k wrote: post #173

Used B2 heavily until recently as a origin server for a CDN. Few weeks ago we saw a spike in 502 / 504 responses. When I contacted their customer supported , I was pointed to the following URL where they explain in detail how they handle these errors https://www.backblaze.com/blog/b2-503-500-server-error/ Essentially they are not considered as errors and expect the client to retry loading the file. This approach won'…

So, you're relying on the API being 100% reliable? no errors?

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#264

Post by Dylan16807 »

cdumler wrote: post #216
kevstev wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to see if this was now better than Glacier- and aside from the SLA's being much better in terms of retrieval, I am not sure they make sense for a backup use case- where you are only really planning on downloading that data back down in a worst case scenario. It may depend on what your incremental backups look like as well- mine are negligible- a dump of a few GB of photos after holidays, other records ar…

My two cents is that there is no reason to _use_ Glacier as a backup strategy. Glacier's cost come for restoration: the more you restore and the faster you want to restore it, the more quickly costs rise. It's far better suited for a collection where you're pretty much most of it will never be restored but what you'll need to restore you don't know. Think video, art, music assets for projects. B2's retrieval is far,…

If you can wait a few hours, the better comparison is probably Glacier Deep Archive, which is not $4/TB/month but $1/TB/month.

Amazon wants to charge you $90/TB* to get data to the outside world, compared to B2's $10, but you can mitigate it in various ways. At the low end that's using a lightsail instance as a VPN, depending whether you think the TOS allows that. At the high end it's paying flexify.io $40 to move your data to B2, then paying B2 $10.

There might be other ways to improve S3 egress costs. It's a very hard thing to search for. I only learned about flexify from this post.

So if you have to restore less than half of your data each year, Glacier Deep storage will save you money. It's worth considering, unlike normal Glacier which is almost entirely downside.

* There's also a $2.50/TB fee to get things out of Glacier, but that's dwarfed by the other costs.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#265

Post by justinclift »

ADefenestrator wrote: post #254
toohotatopic wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't there a startup on hn some weeks ago that used a crypto mining approach to server management that was much cheaper?

Disclaimer - Backblaze employee here, but just speaking for myself: It was.. sort of cheaper. They didn't actually build the servers, and as described the server wouldn't work (onboard SATA didn't support port multipliers, lack of ECC would probably cause problems in practice, bit hand-wavey on power/space/network/manpower costs, etc). The goal of the article was to get other people to build cheap storage and put it…

How far off do you reckon Backblaze is from designing your own motherboards + electronics, with just the pieces you need? :)

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#266

Post by ing33k »

TickleSteve wrote: post #263
ing33k wrote: post #173

Used B2 heavily until recently as a origin server for a CDN. Few weeks ago we saw a spike in 502 / 504 responses. When I contacted their customer supported , I was pointed to the following URL where they explain in detail how they handle these errors https://www.backblaze.com/blog/b2-503-500-server-error/ Essentially they are not considered as errors and expect the client to retry loading the file. This approach won'…

So, you're relying on the API being 100% reliable? no errors?

I not expecting 100 % reliability.

but when we get a 503 response it should be considered an an error and acknowledged by the provider that it's an error.

in my use case, we were using a CDN which was configured to pull files from B2. When B2 responds with a 503/500 I have no control on the retry mechanism.

The error rate was around 5-10%

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#267

Post by fragmede »

toast0 wrote: post #195
anotheracct_ wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to Cloudflare as the network provider. It seems not-net-neutral to be charged different amounts depending on the relationship between the storage provider and the network provider. If the argument is a semantic one, that net neutrality is so narrowly defined that it doesn't apply to them as a CDN rather than a conventional ISP, it still stands that the situation is not-net-neutral if we generalize that…

Network neutrality is a difficult concept to apply because its core concept doesn't map well to reality. The core concept, in my mind, is that all packets should be treated equally, and should cost the customer the same amount per byte. The problem is that different packets take different network paths and have different costs to your provider. The bandwidth alliance partners are exchanging traffic via peering links,…

Is it really that difficult a concept? Comcast charging Netflix for access to Netflix's customers, when Netflix's customers are paying Comcast for Internet access, is bullshit.

Reword it to be generic, and dress it up in more polite language, but that's what it is.

Comcast, nor any other ISP, doesn't get to shake down Netflix or Google or Facebook nor any service providers, big or small, on the Internet.

Sure, behind the scenes there are backbone providers and peering arrangements and BGP, but those are technical details. Network neutrality means as a consumer I pay an ISP and get connected to the Internet.

Whereas Comcast is a cable TV company, the game between companies of consumer chicken is not theoretical, eg

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/why-you-sti...

https://mynbc15.com/news/local/att-and-directv-have-removed-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbs-blackout-on-dire...

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#268

Post by fragmede »

toast0 wrote: post #195
anotheracct_ wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to Cloudflare as the network provider. It seems not-net-neutral to be charged different amounts depending on the relationship between the storage provider and the network provider. If the argument is a semantic one, that net neutrality is so narrowly defined that it doesn't apply to them as a CDN rather than a conventional ISP, it still stands that the situation is not-net-neutral if we generalize that…

Network neutrality is a difficult concept to apply because its core concept doesn't map well to reality. The core concept, in my mind, is that all packets should be treated equally, and should cost the customer the same amount per byte. The problem is that different packets take different network paths and have different costs to your provider. The bandwidth alliance partners are exchanging traffic via peering links,…

Mandatory line sharing is an interesting idea. We've tried it before, back in the DSL era (2000s). Not saying we shouldn't try it again, but it only sorta worked. Whether instructions came down from ATT corporate offices or were malice, or incompetence, on the part of locally contracted installing technicians; the shared boxes were the worst of the commons.

If a neighbor got from a rival DSL provider, your Internet was liable to go out until your ISP was able to get a truck out to fix the damage to your connection that the competition's technicians did.

Those laws are still around, but unfortunately, (A)DSL tops out at single-digit megabits. An upgrade from dial-up, but not competitive with todays broadband market for those with other options.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#269

Post by hannibalhorn »

ac29 wrote: post #91
hannibalhorn wrote: post #53

Just signed up to try it out - would really like to see some form of two factor auth that isn't SMS based. TOTP and/or FIDO U2F.

I've been using TOTP with B2 for ages. I think SMS is just to set up the account.

Ah, the copy next to "Turn on Two Factor" sure sounded like SMS only, but sure enough, it gives you the option to use TOTP later on. Thanks!
Post reply on HN