this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)

Selfhosted

60543 readers
385 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the link in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post. )

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I want to mount some B2 buckets on Linux for read/write access. What do people recommend?

s3fs, rclone or GeeseFS seem to be the sensible choices, but please share your hard-won opinions with me.

edit: or goofys?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aksdb@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What's your use-case? What do you want to achieve?

Using blob storages as filesystems doesn't work well and could - with B2's pricing structure - became excessively expensive. Blob storages are designed for easily writing and reading individual blobs. Filesystems are designed for random access, listing, traversal, etc.

[–] Deebster@lemmyrs.org 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's for storing a few terabytes of fairly static media (for the most part, write-once). The codebases using it don't natively support object storage (and will be in Docker containers).

It's on a Hetzner server, and Backblaze (even after the price increase) will be a lot cheaper than normal drives, although their storage box option is probably better value over about two GB.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But the thing is: B2 is cheap for storage, but retrieval and traversal are very expensive. And if that happens transparently on the filesystem (because you accidentally run grep or the service in question regularly hashes the files or something), you would implicitly download everything stored. And IIRC retrieval costs ten times the storage costs... each time.)

[–] huck@lemmy.nz 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is no longer the case. Starting in October egress is free up to 3x the volume stored with them.

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 5 points 2 years ago

Backblaze recently revised B2 storage, it's gone up by $1 and they offer free egress equal to I believe 2x or 3x the data you have stored with them. Let me try find a link to this...

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/2023-product-announcement/

[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have a similar use case and whilst I’m not quite there yet I’m intending to go with a storage box

[–] Deebster@lemmyrs.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I plan to switch over later when it makes sense to - the nice thing about Backblaze is that it scales with your storage, whereas with Hetzner you have to jump from 1 TB to 5 TB.

[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

Oh I know, I had the same thoughts

Object storage does really bad as a filesystem and it may very seriously be cheaper for you to have a 5TB storage box over 2TB of object storage

S3 has no list operation, so any time the computer wants to “list” a directory in object storage that is expensive