Not that long ago someone on hn poster this [0] a zig based s3 server in 1k lines, (warning not production ready) but if you really look for something simple, it might fit your case.
I just want simple S3
61–70 of 130 posts
Re: I just want simple S3
#62Is the problem here that everyone wants a different like 45% of the S3 API? Or is it that minio sucked all the oxygen out of the air in this space by being good at this, and now we need something else to show up?
Then why nobody forked minio?
Re: I just want simple S3
#63Since this has come up 4-5 times on the thread already, the clear subtext of this post is that this developer wants to build to the S3 API, but run their storage locally --- maybe for testing reasons, maybe for data hygiene reasons, maybe for performance reasons. So things like "what about Hugging Face's object storage product" don't really answer their question.
I wouldn’t say it’s “clear”. If you want good answers to your Internet blog begs, it’s probably good to actually state your use case. “I just want S3” means different things to different people.
Re: I just want simple S3
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
While not obvious from the article, it appears that they want something S3 like, but isn’t from Amazon, and possibly want to self host it. The article could be much more clear about the goals
Ah, thanks. Yeah I was confused because in his long list of vendors he didn't mention Wasabi, Backblaze etc. It appears that I do not know the context of his post.
I’ve never had an issue with Backblaze. I mirror my buckets to iDrive who, so far, have also been perfectly fine.
Re: I just want simple S3
#65Garage has worked well for me and gives a good sense of stability. They provide helm charts for deployment and a CLI. There's also very few concepts to learn to start to use it, while e.g. for SeaweedFS I feel like you need to parse a lot of docs and understand more specific terminology.
Re: I just want simple S3
#66Personally I would suggest that the "easiest S3" would be simply using NFS. You can get replication with RAID. S3 is simple for the users, not the operators. For replicating something like S3 you need to manage a lot of parts and take a lot of decisions. The design space is huge: Replication: RAID, distributed copies, distributed erasure codes... Coordination: centralized, centralized with backup, decentralized, logi…
NFS in practice is too different from S3 to make this work. I’ve been at a couple companies where somebody tried putting an S3 interface in front of an NFS cluster. In practice, the semantics of S3 and NFS are different enough that I’ve had to then deal with software failures. Software designed to work with S3 is designed to work with S3 semantics and S3 performance. Hook it up to an S3 API on what is otherwise an NF…
> but it’s just not good enough in most NFS systems.
NFS is just an interface. At the end of the day it's on top of an FS. It's entirely possible and sometimes done in practice to replicate the underlying store served by NFS. As you would expect there are several means of doing this from the simple to the truly "high-availability."
Re: I just want simple S3
#67Wouldn't Blossom fit this? https://github.com/hzrd149/blossom
Re: I just want simple S3
#68I use rustfs (for local development, not scaled usage) and it seems solid.
Re: I just want simple S3
#69I think we get a "S3 clone" about once every week or two on the Golang reddit. It strikes me as a classic case of "we need all the interested people to pull in one project, not each start their own". AI may have made this worse then ever.
I'm pretty sure I set up most of what "Simple S3" using with Apache2 and WebDAV at least fifteen years ago. Every month there's a post of "I just want a simple S3 server" and every single one of them has a different definition of "simple". The moment any project overlaps between the use cases of two "simple S3" projects, they're no longer "simple" enough. That's probably why hosted S3-like services will exist even if…
`rclone serve webdav` is a superpower!
Re: I just want simple S3
#70S3 isn't "simple" tho. It doesn't need to care about POSIX mess but there is whole swathes of features many implementations miss or are incomplete, both on frontend side (serving files with right headers, or with right authentication) and backend (user/policy management, legal hold, versioning etc.) It gets even more messy when migrating, for example migrating your backups to garagefs will lose you versioning, which…
I just spent some time with the s3 protocol and I agree completely. What should have been able to leverage the simplifying assumptions turned into another hodgepodge. It’s not like nfs is a real shining example of simplicity either. I’ve never worked with p9, but potentially that aside I think we really failed to come up with a decent distributed file model,
It was simple(ish) 20 years ago, to be fair.