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

Introducing Object Storage

digitalocean.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#21

Post by raiyu »

SamLevin88 wrote: post #11
zedpm wrote: post #3

Slowly, very slowly, DO is creeping towards having enough features to peel users off of AWS and GCP. Block storage, load balancers, and now blob storage...if you don't need managed queues or databases, you can probably save some serious coin by running services on DO. S3 sets a high bar in terms of durability and availability, so it will be interesting to see how well DO can compete, and it will take a long time to g…

Good to know. Am in the throes of choosing between both for a simple project

VPC is in the works at the moment, still a bit too early for a release date, but the team has been on it for about the past 3 quarters.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#22

Post by raiyu »

fredsted wrote: post #16
raiyu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We roll out a public beta test with existing customers to ensure performance and reliability before doing a GA release. This allows customers to use the new product and provide feedback as well as help us to ensure a great level of service when the product goes full GA. So it's really a way for customers to test out new products early, but the specific details are specifically light so that if there are any major cha…

I think it's a little weird to say "Introducing Object Storage" when you're not introducing anything at all. There's zero information about it! Is it S3 compatible? Does it compete with S3? Does it supports static file hosting? How do permissions work? I think it would make more sense to communicate that you're looking for beta testers for an object storage service.

Certainly the GA release will have all of that information, but given that large product releases like this are about a year of work, and part of the release schedule for us is a beta test with existing customers the introduction is basically to invite customers into the beta if they want to participate, and also that is the final step before GA release.

Customers who want to be a part of the beta are using the actual product that we are developing, but we don't commit to specifics publicly incase things change, which is why it's a beta release, not GA.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#23

Post by raiyu »

justrobert wrote: post #19
raiyu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't providing pricing information till full GA which is later in the year. All beta users will be given 1TB of free object storage during the beta period.

I think the lack of a pricing model and how short the free period is (until Oct 2017) makes it hard for many users to even justify testing it. For me it seems if a developer has to spend more than an hour testing this new product they are better off using S3.

Certainly if you are considering moving a production workload, then a beta test, regardless of the company, may not be an ideal fit.

Object storage has been a highly requested feature by our customers and now that we are getting closer to GA we want to ensure that customers get a chance to use the product and provide feedback on usability, bugs, performance, and etc.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#24

Post by justrobert »

raiyu wrote: post #23
justrobert wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the lack of a pricing model and how short the free period is (until Oct 2017) makes it hard for many users to even justify testing it. For me it seems if a developer has to spend more than an hour testing this new product they are better off using S3.

Certainly if you are considering moving a production workload, then a beta test, regardless of the company, may not be an ideal fit. Object storage has been a highly requested feature by our customers and now that we are getting closer to GA we want to ensure that customers get a chance to use the product and provide feedback on usability, bugs, performance, and etc.

I wasn't even discussing moving production environments, just the beta test seems to highly favor DO in terms of cost.

But that is fine, if enough users are willing to front the cost of testing.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#25

Post by lftl »

Arcsech wrote: post #12
zedpm wrote: post #3

Slowly, very slowly, DO is creeping towards having enough features to peel users off of AWS and GCP. Block storage, load balancers, and now blob storage...if you don't need managed queues or databases, you can probably save some serious coin by running services on DO. S3 sets a high bar in terms of durability and availability, so it will be interesting to see how well DO can compete, and it will take a long time to g…

I wouldn't be surprised to see DO either roll out DaaS next or partner with someone (Compose.io?) to do it. That's one of two things (the other being VPC, which I know they're working on per HN posts elsewhere) that make AWS/GCP tempting over DO for me. That said, I kind of hope it's not Compose.io - they seem ridiculously overpriced for PostgreSQL compared to AWS's and GCP's offerings.

IBM owns Compose.io now, so I'd be a little surprised to see them launch anything on DO.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#26

Post by 5ilv3r »

setq wrote: post #6
chris_wot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a stand for object storage?

openstack swift supposedly but this is a slightly incompatible S3 implementation that nothing else talks. The filesystem works pretty well though ;)

Swift3 speaks aws4 auth now. The real problem is S3 clients that expect an amazon signed cert. No good way to fake that nicely.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#27

Post by raiyu »

megamindbrian wrote: post #20

Um. Ok, something is wrong with your UI. There is no options to use Object Storage after signing up and required to enter a credit card. The drop down menu font is blurry. Support page takes about 30 seconds to load.

This is an invitation for beta access, you sign up to request access and then and invitation to be a part of the beta access will be emailed separately.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#28

Post by megamindbrian »

raiyu wrote: post #27
megamindbrian wrote: post #20

Um. Ok, something is wrong with your UI. There is no options to use Object Storage after signing up and required to enter a credit card. The drop down menu font is blurry. Support page takes about 30 seconds to load.

This is an invitation for beta access, you sign up to request access and then and invitation to be a part of the beta access will be emailed separately.

I already cancelled my account.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#29

Post by setq »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #14
setq wrote: post #2

If there's anything I've learned about object storage over the last year, it is: don't use object storage unless you need it for a particularly narrow use case of silly data volumes or CDN storage for a massively distributed content network. Anything else, forget it. It rarely if ever works properly with standard Linux or Windows tools (s3), it has a rat's nest of arbitrary restrictions which require a language lawye…

> credential storage is a nightmare for distribution compared to rsync/ssh. I don't understand this argument. Why is it harder to store credentials for S3 or GCS than it is to store credentials for rsync or ssh?

Because everything has no ownership, no standard place to put things and no logical consistency.

Re: Introducing Object Storage

#30

Post by CobrastanJorji »

setq wrote: post #29
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> credential storage is a nightmare for distribution compared to rsync/ssh. I don't understand this argument. Why is it harder to store credentials for S3 or GCS than it is to store credentials for rsync or ssh?

Because everything has no ownership, no standard place to put things and no logical consistency.

I think I'm even more confused now. If you're going to have an app ssh or rsync, it's going to have a password or a private key to use that will be associated with some account, right? And if you want to use cloud storage, you'll also need a credential or a private key to use that will be associated with some account, right? What's the difference?
Post reply on HN