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

Mountpoint – file client for S3 written in Rust, from AWS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–102 of 102 posts

Re: Mountpoint – file client for S3 written in Rust, from AWS

#101

Post by Nightshaderr »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #65
Arnavion wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a WebDAV server for storing backups (Fastmail Files). The server allows 10GB usage, but max file size is 250MB, and in any case WebDAV does not support partial writes. So writing a file requires reuploading it, which is the same situation as S3. What I did is: 1. Create 10000 files, each of 1MB size, so that the total usage is 10GB. 2. Mount each file as a loopback block device using `losetup`. 3. Create a RAID…

What a coincidence, I just recently did something similar. Did you run into any problems with discard/zeroing/trim support? This was a problem with sshfs — I can’t change the version/settings on the other side, and files seemed to simply grow and become more fragmented. I suspected WebDAV and Samba might have had been the solution but never looked into it since sshfs is so solid.

Upon reading this idea I created https://github.com/lrvl/PosixSyncFS - feel free to comment

Re: Mountpoint – file client for S3 written in Rust, from AWS

#102

Post by FridgeSeal »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #10

After teaching customers for years that S3 shouldn't be mounted as a filesystem because of its whole object-or-nothing semantics, and even offering a paid solution named "storage gateway" to prevent issues between FS and S3 semantics, it's rather interesting they'd release a product like this. Amazon should really just fix the underlying issue of semantics by providing a PatchObjectPart API call that overwrites a par…

> it's rather interesting they'd release a product like this

Azure has a feature where you can mount a blob store storage container into a container/VM, is this possibly aiming to match that feature?

I definitely think people should stop trying to pretend S3 is a file system and embrace what’s it’s good at instead, but I have had many times when having an easy and fast read-only view into an S3 bucket would be insanely useful.

Post reply on HN