Simple S3 sooooooo S4 ? xD
I just want simple S3
81–90 of 130 posts
Re: I just want simple S3
#82Check out Floci. It is a self hosted AWS clone with multiple services functional, including S3 and Dynamodb. https://github.com/floci-io/floci
Floci is yet more AI slop.
"firt commit" [0] was less than a month ago and added 51k lines in a single commit.
0: https://github.com/floci-io/floci/commit/61433f59ab995e9eaeb...
Re: I just want simple S3
#83S3 isn't "simple" tho. It doesn't need to care about POSIX mess but there is whole swathes of features many implementations miss or are incomplete, both on frontend side (serving files with right headers, or with right authentication) and backend (user/policy management, legal hold, versioning etc.) It gets even more messy when migrating, for example migrating your backups to garagefs will lose you versioning, which…
S3 needs a split:
QS3 (Quite Simple Storage Service) for the barebones. Bucket/Object CRUD. Maybe: Multipart Uploads. Presigned URLs.
S3 for Object Tagging, Access Control Lists, etc.
S3E (enterprise? extended? elaborate?) for Object Lock & Retention (WORM compliance, Legal Holds), Event Notifications and so on.
Re: I just want simple S3
#84I find it fascinating that a list of OSS/self-hosted S3 projects is on the front page of Hacker News. Familiar with most of these from working with on-premises customers with OpenFaaS. Minio was one of the first we integrated with in 2017 - back then it didn't support webhooks for notifications on object mutation, so ended up sending them a PR and showing it on the stage at Dockercon Austin.
I don't have a horse in this game, but have had pretty reasonable results using SeaweedFS for GitHub Actions caching. RustFS is on my list to test next, and a team mate is quite keen on Garage.
Re: I just want simple S3
#85Simple for you is not simple for me, and vice versa.
10 users with simple needs = complex software.
Re: I just want simple S3
#86I've used Garage to some success, the garage.toml configuration file could be a bit more user friendly https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/reference-manua... but with some tweaks there I could get it working nicely both for HDD and SSD use cases, e.g. storing a bunch of Sentinel-2 satellite tiles, alongside thumbnails and some metadata.
SeaweedFS and RustFS both look nice though, last I checked Zenko was kinda abandoned.
Also pretty simple when I can launch a container of whatever I need (albeit bootstrapping, e.g. creating buckets and access keys SHOULD probably done with env variables the same way how you can initialize a MySQL/MariaDB/PostgreSQL instance in containers) and don't have to worry too much about installing or running stuff direcetly on my system. As for unsupported features - I just don't do the things that aren't supported.
Re: I just want simple S3
#87I 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.
what's the point then? Just api around FS?
Re: I just want simple S3
#88Is the problem here that everyone wants a different like 45% of the S3 API? Or is it that minio sucked all the oxygen out of the air in this space by being good at this, and now we need something else to show up?
Then why nobody forked minio?
Maybe nobody wants to spend effort maintaining it? I imagine it's simpler to build your own S3 alternative than maintain minio.
Also nobody wants to test AGPL liability in court: https://www.reddit.com/r/minio/comments/1fnuv46/does_interac...
Re: I just want simple S3
#89How about s3proxy: https://github.com/gaul/s3proxy
Among other things, it can serve local folders as s3 api.
Re: I just want simple S3
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
what's the point then? Just api around FS?
For a lot of project that would be sufficient. I've worked on projects that "required" an S3 storage solution. Not because it actually did, but because it needed some sort of object/file storage which could be accesses from somewhere, might be a Java application running in JBoss, might be a SpringBoot application in a container, on Kubernetes, Nomad or just on a VM.
Like it or not, S3 has become the de facto API for object storage for many developers. From the operations side of things, managing files is easier and already taken care of by your storage solution, be it a SAN, NAS or something entirely different. Being able to backup and manage whatever is stored in S3 with your existing setup is direct saving.
If you actually use a large subset of S3s features this might not be good solution, but in my experience you have a few buckets and a few limited ACLs and that's it.