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

Healthchecks.io now uses self-hosted object storage

blog.healthchecks.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

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

#41

Post by QuercusMax »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #30
daveguy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly would the alternative have been in 2006? Well, WebDAV (Document Authoring and Versioning) had been around for 8 years when AWS decided they needed a custom API. And what service provider wasn't trying to lock you into a service by providing a custom API (especially pre-GPT) when one existed already? Assuming they made the choice for a business benefit doesn't require anything close to a conspiracy theo…

WebDAV is ass tho. I don't remember a single positive experience with anything using it. And still need redundant backend giving it as API

When I was in school, we had a SkunkDAV setup that department secretaries were supposed to use to update websites... supporting that was no fun at all. I'm not sure why it was so painful (was 25 years ago) but it left a bad taste in my mouth.

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

#43

Post by cuu508 »

iamcreasy wrote: post #34

Given the individual file size and total volume, I'd argue it make sense to use move to local only storage. On a separate note, what tool is the final benchmark screenshot form?

The graphs are from Netdata. I'm using it to monitor the servers, and also feeding it some application metrics via its statsd interface.

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

#44

Post by chasd00 »

> 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.

Were your users complaining about reliability and performance? If it cost more, adds more work (backup/restore management), and the users aren't happier then why make the change in the first place?

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

#45

Post by encoderer »

chasd00 wrote: post #44

> 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. Were your users complaining about reliability and performance? If it cost more, adds more work (backup/restore management), and the users aren't happier then why make the change in the first place?

Not the OP but I have some… similar experience. When you run a high availability service without a full ops team, reliable infrastructure is non-negotiable. Burn out has to be managed.

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

#46

Post by Datagenerator »

0x457 wrote: post #39
_joel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from all these other products that implement s3? MinIO, Ceph (RGW), Garage, SeaweedFS, Zenko CloudServer, OpenIO, LakeFS, Versity, Storj, Riak CS, JuiceFS, Rustfs, s3proxy.

Riak CS been dead for over a decade which makes me question the rest. Some of these also do not have the same behaviors when it comes to paths (MinIO is one of those IIRC). Also, none of them implement full S3 API and features.

What does RadosGW miss?

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

#47

Post by skrtskrt »

0x457 wrote: post #39
_joel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from all these other products that implement s3? MinIO, Ceph (RGW), Garage, SeaweedFS, Zenko CloudServer, OpenIO, LakeFS, Versity, Storj, Riak CS, JuiceFS, Rustfs, s3proxy.

Riak CS been dead for over a decade which makes me question the rest. Some of these also do not have the same behaviors when it comes to paths (MinIO is one of those IIRC). Also, none of them implement full S3 API and features.

There's a difference between S3 API spec and what Amazon does with S3 - for isntance, the new CAS capabilities with Amazon are not part of the spec.

Ceph certainly implements the full API spec, though it may lag behind some changes. It's mostly a question of engineering time available to the projects to keep up with changes.

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

#49

Post by zenoprax »

smjburton wrote: post #31

> In March 2026, I migrated to self-hosted object storage powered by Versity S3 Gateway. Thanks for sharing this, I wasn't even aware of Versity S3 from my searches and discussions here. I recently migrated my projects from MinIO to Garage, but this seems like another viable option to consider.

First time hearing about Versity for me too. I thought "S3 Gateways" were an Amazon-only service rather than something mere mortals could set up.

I've been trying to give some containers (LXC/D and OCI) unprivileged access to a network-accessible ZFS filesystem and this might be what I need. Managing UID/GID through bind-mounts from the host to the container (ie NFS on host) has been trickier than I was expecting.

Post reply on HN