The new service is a whopping 75 cheaper than Amazon Web Services’ S3. For example they say “ the fact that B2 is sustainable service offered at ¼ of S3’s price.” but in reality Backblaze never was and still is not profitable. Backblaze has moved its S3-compatible B2 Cloud Storage service to general availability. This is not the only option though, for example, Minio can be used as an s3 gateway to b2 as well.ĭuplicacy works with B2 directly, so the whole point is moot: there is no compelling reason to use the s3 workaround.Įdit: that article is not 100% truthful.
#Backblaze vs s3 software
In other words, B2 is better fitted to the storage architecture, as it was designed for it (they even call it Native), while s3 is a heavy wrapper on top of it to reach people that are familiar with s3 and have software that works with s3: they could just say - hey, replace the url with Backblaze, and stop paying Amazon and start paying us. See sections “Load Balancing vs Contract Architecture” and further the eventual vs strong consistency.
You can read more here: How the Amazon S3 API Design Ends Up Costing You Money.
Apparently, capturing those customers they deemed to be worth the additional expense maintaining that whole S3 gateway hardware. Then later they added the whole other pile of services and hardware to provide s3 access to capture customers that cannot use B2 protocol, specifically because S3 existed for longer there is a lot of software that supports S3 but not B2. Amazon Simple Storage Service provides a fully redundant data storage infrastructure for storing and retrieving any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere. But I sensed that S3 was preferred as it is more widely supported.ī2 was developed to support the specific Backblaze architecture, where the few load balancers give out upload links to storage nodes directly to customers.
0 kommentar(er)
