If anyone wants an s3 browser with folder counts, and object rendering based on its extension, dm.
I just want simple S3
71–80 of 130 posts
Re: I just want simple S3
#72Wouldn't RustFS be something?
Re: I just want simple S3
#73I just need something that can do S3 and is reliable and not slow. Oh, simply that. I'm a simple man, I just need edge delivered cdn content that never fails and responds within 20ms.
I don't think that is what they are looking for. They just want something with an s3 compatible API they can run on their local network or maybe even on the same host.
Re: I just want simple S3
#74vibe code a s3 implementation build on tikv.
Re: I just want simple S3
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Simpler than it is now, but the authentication system was never simple. You can't just put a bearer token in the authorization header, you have to follow a complicated algorithm to sign the request. That made some sense 20 years ago when s3 didn't use tls to protect against a mitm that changed the changed the request. It is less valuable now when you use tls.
Re: I just want simple S3
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was simple(ish) 20 years ago, to be fair.
Simpler than it is now, but the authentication system was never simple. You can't just put a bearer token in the authorization header, you have to follow a complicated algorithm to sign the request. That made some sense 20 years ago when s3 didn't use tls to protect against a mitm that changed the changed the request. It is less valuable now when you use tls.
Isn't the whole signed request part a hard requirement for 3rd party access? S3 was originally designed for web use, which means giving not-fully-trusted browsers some access to your storage bucket.
You can't exactly do "this client is allowed to download this one specific file for the next 24 hours (but not use it like their personal CDN and share the link with everyone)" or "this client is allowed to upload a single image file up to 10MB (but not upload a 100GB copy of Friends)" with basic bearer tokens.
Re: I just want simple S3
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simpler than it is now, but the authentication system was never simple. You can't just put a bearer token in the authorization header, you have to follow a complicated algorithm to sign the request. That made some sense 20 years ago when s3 didn't use tls to protect against a mitm that changed the changed the request. It is less valuable now when you use tls.
Isn't the whole signed request part a hard requirement for 3rd party access? S3 was originally designed for web use, which means giving not-fully-trusted browsers some access to your storage bucket. You can't exactly do "this client is allowed to download this one specific file for the next 24 hours (but not use it like their personal CDN and share the link with everyone)" or "this client is allowed to upload a singl…
Of course you can do all that with a basic bearer token. It’s just a signed json object with an expiration
Re: I just want simple S3
#78Since 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.
Yeah, but that missing context is super important.
If they want it for local dev work, that's pretty different from wanting a high-performance air gapped object store without rewriting clients.
They seem to know what they're doing (having complained about a methodology problem in MinIO), and yet don't personally want to throw their hat in the ring not maybe pay anyone...
Context matters!
Re: I just want simple S3
#79Fwiw, yesterday I was messing about with GitLab backups. One of the options for direct off-site is S3. But I want that S3 bucket to live on a box on my own Tailnet.
So I too just want simple S3. Minio used to be the no-brainer. I'll checkout RustFS as well.
It does not sound hard (although it is hard for me!). It sounds like it should be some LinuxServer io container. Doesn't it? At this point S3 is just as standard as WebDav or anything right?