• cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    S3 compatibility is nice I guess if you need S3 compatibility but also… why would you need that?

    sshfs does everything I need and compatibility is almost native.

      • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        So enlighten me then, save me from my terrible hack that is working fine for me and tell me what it DOES have to do with. I thought S3 was a remote filesystem you can use, essentially Amazon’s proprietary version of webdav where you get a http bucket you can only access with aws proprietary tools. What’s the attraction? Clearly it seems like people love it, and I am getting dunked on for asking an honest question, which feels a bit unhealthy and unpleasant for the self-hosting community.

        Am I supposed to be familiar with AWS infrastructure as a prerequisite for being here?

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          ok, to start with, if you need a POSIX interface to the filesystem, you already have an SSH connection to that server, and don’t need much stability across multiple clients, SSHFS may do just fine. For a homelab, that is likely the case.

          now, if you’re hosting a web server that needs data distributed across drives/nodes, data redundancy, and the usage is primarily programmatic, closer to a CDN’s or machine learning pipeline than a single user browsing files; then you want an S3-compatible solution. The S3 API makes it easier to plug it into your application, while allowing you to migrate to a different one - which I’m actually currently doing for a MinIO deployment at work.