Introducing Object Storage(digitalocean.com) |
Introducing Object Storage(digitalocean.com) |
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 gain the same level of trust that S3 has earned.
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.
I use DO personally for small things and like it a lot, but VPC is a hard requirement for company work.
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 lawyer to decypher (s3/iam/vpc/roles), the APIs are vendor specific and sometimes even region specific (s3), the APIs are obtuse (s3 multipart), the clients are buggy (boto/boto3), suddenly you inherit extra costs and configuration requirements if you want to do something like expose it over http (route53/cloudfront/s3), credential storage is a nightmare for distribution compared to rsync/ssh etc. Ugh.
Please note I have used Google Storage as well and all of the above also apply.
The only thing that is positive is capital expenditure is low.
[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/usingHLmpuJav...
Edit: Added link to high level API
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?
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.
Is it possible to get early developer access to the API?
This might be possible because of the advances in software defined networking. Cloud firewall removes the hassles of setting up complex iptables in the name of network security and frees those extra cpu cycles and memory utilization.
DigitalOcean is getting better at solving common VPS use cases. I like 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.
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.
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.
But that is fine, if enough users are willing to front the cost of testing.
1 - First was that it didn't really work. You could stand it up but DHCP licenses would fail, your VMs would go down, it just wasn't quite stable.
2 - Naively we thought it was a bit too complicated. Sometimes early on being naive is great and we certainly made a more simple system ourselves, however as time went on we realized, that our backend was beginning to resemble OpenStack in complexity, but we would still have more flexibility in hiding that complexity from our end users.
3 - OpenStack is designed for organizations but not necessarily to be multi-tenant. Taking any software and making it multi-tenant for different customers is a large effort, so coupling that with OpenStack not being mature, just seemed like a lot of effort to put into it.
4 - It wasn't really Open Source the way we were used to it. We were used to organic open source efforts by single developers or teams of developers that naturally grew and developed over time. OpenStack just looked like it was very much "corporate" sponsored open source, which wasn't something we felt comfortable putting our faith into.