• rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    S3 is made for scaling. At an individual scale it doesn’t matter. At scale, S3 moves maintenance time away from managing individual issues about something not working or slow here and there towards configuring and maintaining a consistent piece of architecture

    • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s great for production AWS managed services, but that still sounds like the opposite of self-hosting to me, I don’t need scaling like that, I’m not lying when I admit I’m using sshfs (which was a slightly tongue-in-cheek counterpoint to s3) and despite everyone dunking on it, it is in fact working perfectly at my scale. I know I’ve been downvoted to purgatory but I still stand by my original comment. I don’t understand why you would need S3 or S3 compatibility in a self-hosting context. The closest someone has come to explaining it is the guy who said choice is good… like, yeah, it’s good to have the choice I guess, but… still doesn’t seem like a great choice for self-hosting. I appreciate you trying to explain it but I feel like everyone is missing the self-hosting context here. For a little home lab I simply don’t see the value. Why are people promoting AWS and AWS-adjacent services here?