Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#1

Post by zdw » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage
blog.healthchecks.io

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#2

Post by _joel » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

I'm sure it's a lot better now but everytime I see btrfs I get PTSD.

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#3

Post by poly2it » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

_joel wrote: post #2

I'm sure it's a lot better now but everytime I see btrfs I get PTSD.

Care to elaborate? I've heard good things about it, but am personally a ZFS user.

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#4

Post by metadat » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

poly2it wrote: post #3

_joel wrote: post #2

I'm sure it's a lot better now but everytime I see btrfs I get PTSD.

Care to elaborate? I've heard good things about it, but am personally a ZFS user.

Years of serious corruption bugs.

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#5

Post by tobilg » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

I don't get it, if it's running on the same (mentioning "local") machine, why does it even need the S3 API? Could just be plain IO on the local drive(s)

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#6

Post by esafak » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 2:58 PM UTC

tobilg wrote: post #5

I don't get it, if it's running on the same (mentioning "local") machine, why does it even need the S3 API? Could just be plain IO on the local drive(s)

So you don't need to refactor your code?

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#7

Post by zipy124 » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 3:02 PM UTC

tobilg wrote: post #5

I don't get it, if it's running on the same (mentioning "local") machine, why does it even need the S3 API? Could just be plain IO on the local drive(s)

seperate machine I think given the quoted point at the end:

> The costs have increased: renting an additional dedicated server costs more than storing ~100GB at a managed object storage service. But the improved performance and reliability are worth it.

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#8

Post by dundercoder » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 3:06 PM UTC

metadat wrote: post #4

poly2it wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate? I've heard good things about it, but am personally a ZFS user.

Years of serious corruption bugs.

Gluster was that for me

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#9

Post by VHRanger » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 3:07 PM UTC

tobilg wrote: post #5

I don't get it, if it's running on the same (mentioning "local") machine, why does it even need the S3 API? Could just be plain IO on the local drive(s)

The S3 API doesn't work like normal filesystem APIs.

Part of it is that it follows the object storage model, and part of it is just to lock people into AWS once they start working with it.

Re: Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

#10

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 17, 2026, 3:11 PM UTC

_joel wrote: post #2

I'm sure it's a lot better now but everytime I see btrfs I get PTSD.

[deleted]