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

Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

supabase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#41

Post by kiwicopple »

dperfect wrote: post #34
kiwicopple wrote: post #2

hey hn, supabase ceo here This release introduces a few new features to Supabase Storage: Resumable Uploads , Quality Filters, Next.js support, and WebP support. As a reminder, Supabase Storage is for file storage, not to be confused with Postgres Storage. Resumable Uploads is the biggest update because it means that you can build more resilient apps: your users can continue uploading a file if their internet drops o…

Awesome to see supabase constantly improving. Been using supabase for the past few weeks and have really enjoyed it! I was a bit surprised, however, that there's not currently a good way to reference storage objects from my postgres tables. I found that the recommended way is to store the object's path (as a string) in the database. While that works, it isn't optimal as I'd like to enforce consistency between the obj…

this is a similar issue we face with Auth. We want to give direct access to the data/tables, and at the same time we need some flexibility to alter the tables on rare occasions.

We've dabbled with the idea of offering versioned views which have a "set" interface (eg `storage_v1`, `storage_v2`). We're still debating all the ways that we might do it.

All that to say - we're aware that this experience can be improved and we're working on it.

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#42

Post by kiwicopple »

moomoo11 wrote: post #39
kiwicopple wrote: post #2

hey hn, supabase ceo here This release introduces a few new features to Supabase Storage: Resumable Uploads , Quality Filters, Next.js support, and WebP support. As a reminder, Supabase Storage is for file storage, not to be confused with Postgres Storage. Resumable Uploads is the biggest update because it means that you can build more resilient apps: your users can continue uploading a file if their internet drops o…

Hi. I was checking out the pricing for supabase database. It seems like it may be more costly than firestore, although you are offering postgres as the underlying data store. I'm wondering if I'm reading that right. When it says 500 connections, is that 500 clients connected at one time? Just trying to compare the pricing vs firebase. Thank you

It's very hard to compare Supabase + Firebase pricing because it depends on which features you're using. For example, API requests are free on Supabase and paid on Firebase.

The 500 connections you quoted is for the "Realtime" feature (which provides multiplayer functionality). You're correct, this is 500 clients connected simultaneously

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#43

Post by kiwicopple »

bachmeier wrote: post #38
kiwicopple wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

client libs are one of our next focuses. we've been discussing internally how to do this. So far we have concentrated on the JS/Dart libs because that makes up a large portion of our users. Over the last 3 months the community has added (and documented) libraries for Swift[0] and C#[0]. We hope to continue making this a community-driven endeavor, so if anyone reading this would like to become a maintainer for one of…

> So far we have concentrated on the JS/Dart libs because that makes up a large portion of our users. I once had a computer magazine publisher tell me they only published Windows content because none of their readers used Mac or Linux.

sounds like they were just getting started and knew the efficacy of focus :)

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#44

Post by joshspankit »

kiwicopple wrote: post #2

hey hn, supabase ceo here This release introduces a few new features to Supabase Storage: Resumable Uploads , Quality Filters, Next.js support, and WebP support. As a reminder, Supabase Storage is for file storage, not to be confused with Postgres Storage. Resumable Uploads is the biggest update because it means that you can build more resilient apps: your users can continue uploading a file if their internet drops o…

Any chance we could choose to use B2 instead of S3?

Even if Supabase keeps the same pricing (though why would you) the folks at BackBlaze have had my respect for a long time and I’m happier when I can stay out of the AWS universe.

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#45

Post by kiwicopple »

joshspankit wrote: post #44
kiwicopple wrote: post #2

hey hn, supabase ceo here This release introduces a few new features to Supabase Storage: Resumable Uploads , Quality Filters, Next.js support, and WebP support. As a reminder, Supabase Storage is for file storage, not to be confused with Postgres Storage. Resumable Uploads is the biggest update because it means that you can build more resilient apps: your users can continue uploading a file if their internet drops o…

Any chance we could choose to use B2 instead of S3? Even if Supabase keeps the same pricing (though why would you) the folks at BackBlaze have had my respect for a long time and I’m happier when I can stay out of the AWS universe.

yes, it's planned. I believe the only blocker we saw last time we looked was a 1-hour downtime-window every week (not that always went offline, but that they could use that time for maintenance). Do you know if that's still the case?

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#46

Post by sickcodebruh »

subpar wrote: post #17
sickcodebruh wrote: post #15

Supabase looks so good and keeps getting better. I started playing with it a couple months ago and could see myself loving it. One of my biggest problems right now is inertia: I’m comfortable with my existing tools (RDS, S3, lambda) and thinking about building a new product while also adding new tools is a tough pill to swallow. But the product sure makes a strong case! Resumable uploads is a big deal for what I’m wo…

I was trying to do the same thing (ffmpeg to do file transformations on upload) and couldn't figure it out with Supabase functions. After poking around in the Deno discord for awhile, it seems that ffmpeg.wasm for Deno just isn't much of a thing yet. I was able to get it working with Vercel functions, but it was a total nightmare and the runtime made it a non-starter. I landed where you started: just do it in Lambda!

This was almost exactly my trajectory. It’s a shame cause Supabase is so close to being a slam dunk for me but this complicates it. Are you using S3 for storage or were you able to stick with Supabase and use upload complete callbacks to trigger the lambda?

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#47

Post by joshspankit »

kiwicopple wrote: post #45
joshspankit wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any chance we could choose to use B2 instead of S3? Even if Supabase keeps the same pricing (though why would you) the folks at BackBlaze have had my respect for a long time and I’m happier when I can stay out of the AWS universe.

yes, it's planned. I believe the only blocker we saw last time we looked was a 1-hour downtime-window every week (not that always went offline, but that they could use that time for maintenance). Do you know if that's still the case?

If you’re talking about https://www.backblaze.com/scheduled-maintenance.html it’s not intended to affect file usage of B2 (the bucket functions may go offline for up to 15min, but ul, dl, and listing of files are fine. One related thing to be aware of: the official documentation suggests adding retry to every file upload as some uploads naturally fail (usually for load balancing))

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#48

Post by moomoo11 »

kiwicopple wrote: post #42
moomoo11 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. I was checking out the pricing for supabase database. It seems like it may be more costly than firestore, although you are offering postgres as the underlying data store. I'm wondering if I'm reading that right. When it says 500 connections, is that 500 clients connected at one time? Just trying to compare the pricing vs firebase. Thank you

It's very hard to compare Supabase + Firebase pricing because it depends on which features you're using. For example, API requests are free on Supabase and paid on Firebase. The 500 connections you quoted is for the "Realtime" feature (which provides multiplayer functionality). You're correct, this is 500 clients connected simultaneously

Thanks appreciate the reply!

Btw did you start working on supabase in 2020? I was looking at the YC catalog.

That’s seriously impressive amount of work if it’s only been a couple of years.

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#49

Post by kiwicopple »

moomoo11 wrote: post #48
kiwicopple wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to compare Supabase + Firebase pricing because it depends on which features you're using. For example, API requests are free on Supabase and paid on Firebase. The 500 connections you quoted is for the "Realtime" feature (which provides multiplayer functionality). You're correct, this is 500 clients connected simultaneously

Thanks appreciate the reply! Btw did you start working on supabase in 2020? I was looking at the YC catalog. That’s seriously impressive amount of work if it’s only been a couple of years.

thank you. yes, we started in Jan 2020

Re: Supabase Storage v3: Resumable Uploads with support for 50GB files

#50

Post by kiwicopple »

sickcodebruh wrote: post #46
subpar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to do the same thing (ffmpeg to do file transformations on upload) and couldn't figure it out with Supabase functions. After poking around in the Deno discord for awhile, it seems that ffmpeg.wasm for Deno just isn't much of a thing yet. I was able to get it working with Vercel functions, but it was a total nightmare and the runtime made it a non-starter. I landed where you started: just do it in Lambda!

This was almost exactly my trajectory. It’s a shame cause Supabase is so close to being a slam dunk for me but this complicates it. Are you using S3 for storage or were you able to stick with Supabase and use upload complete callbacks to trigger the lambda?

that's great feedback. Our Functions team has seen this - we'll see what we can do
Post reply on HN