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

Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 147 posts

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#11

Post by computerfan494 »

klysm wrote: post #8
computerfan494 wrote: post #5

I have used Garage for a long time. It's great, but the AWS sigv4 protocol for accessing it is just frustrating. Why can't I just send my API key as a header? I don't need the full AWS SDK to get and put files, and the AWS sigv4 is a ton of extra complexity to add to my projects. I don't care about the "security benefits" of AWS sigv4. I hope the authors consider a different authentication scheme so I can recommend G…

Sending your api key in the header is equivalent to basic auth.

Yep, and that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with basic auth.

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#12

Post by acdha »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #4
fijiaarone wrote: post #3

I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…

Because at this point it's a well known API. I bet people want to recreate AWS without the Amazon part, and so this is for them. Which, to your point, makes no sense because as you rightly point out, people use S3 because of the Amazon services and ecosystem it is integrated with - not at all because it is "good tech"

S3 was the second AWS service, behind SQS, and saw rapid adoption which cannot be explained by integration with services introduced later.

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#13

Post by acdha »

fijiaarone wrote: post #3

I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…

> Replicating a real file system is not that hard

What personal experience do you have in this area? In particular, how have you handled greater than single-server scale, storage-level corruption, network partitions, and atomicity under concurrent access?

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#14

Post by duskwuff »

fijiaarone wrote: post #3

I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…

> I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS.

It's mostly just S3, really. You don't see anywhere near as many "clones" of other AWS services like EC2, for instance.

And there's a ton of value on being able to develop against a S3 clone like Garage or Minio and deploy against S3 - or being able to retarget an existing application which expected S3 to one of those clones.

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#15

Post by Nathanba »

fijiaarone wrote: post #3

I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…

it's because many other cloud services offer sending to S3, that's pretty much it

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#17

Post by dopylitty »

computerfan494 wrote: post #5

I have used Garage for a long time. It's great, but the AWS sigv4 protocol for accessing it is just frustrating. Why can't I just send my API key as a header? I don't need the full AWS SDK to get and put files, and the AWS sigv4 is a ton of extra complexity to add to my projects. I don't care about the "security benefits" of AWS sigv4. I hope the authors consider a different authentication scheme so I can recommend G…

I read that curl recently added sigv4 for what that’s worth[0]

0: https://how.wtf/aws-sigv4-requests-with-curl.html

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#18

Post by [deleted] »

klysm wrote: post #9
fijiaarone wrote: post #3

I don’t understand why everyone wants to replicate AWS APIs for things that are not AWS. S3 is a horrible interface with a terrible lack of features. It’s just file storage without any of the benefits of a file syste - no metadata, no directory structures, no ability to search, sort, or filter. Combine that with high latency network file access and an overly verbose API. You literally have a bucket for storing files,…

> Replicating a real file system is not that hard Ummmm what? Replicating a file system is insanely hard

[deleted]

Re: Garage: Open-Source Distributed Object Storage

#20

Post by vineyardmike »

klysm wrote: post #8
computerfan494 wrote: post #5

I have used Garage for a long time. It's great, but the AWS sigv4 protocol for accessing it is just frustrating. Why can't I just send my API key as a header? I don't need the full AWS SDK to get and put files, and the AWS sigv4 is a ton of extra complexity to add to my projects. I don't care about the "security benefits" of AWS sigv4. I hope the authors consider a different authentication scheme so I can recommend G…

Sending your api key in the header is equivalent to basic auth.

This is not intended for commercial services. Realistically, this software was made for people who keep servers in their basement. The security profile of LAN users is very different than public AWS.
Post reply on HN