Mounting S3 as a filesystem in your VPS for unlimited cheap storage (roettgers.co)
from ralfrandom@discuss.tchncs.de to selfhosted@lemmy.world on 27 Jun 10:13
https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/18004289

#selfhosted

threaded - newest

stuckgum@lemmy.ml on 27 Jun 12:37 next collapse

Own hardware is always cheaper in the long run

ralfrandom@discuss.tchncs.de on 27 Jun 13:17 next collapse

True, but S3 offers you extremely high availability and security for a quite fair price, and not everyone wants to immediately self host on their own hardware.

brlemworld@lemmy.world on 27 Jun 13:40 next collapse

Cheaper to use Backblaze b2

nezbyte@lemmy.world on 27 Jun 13:47 next collapse

Indeed, the article was written with Backblaze B2 as the S3-compatible storage used.

[deleted] on 27 Jun 14:04 next collapse

.

peregus@lemmy.world on 29 Jun 08:00 collapse

Or Wasabi

errer@lemmy.world on 29 Jun 06:17 collapse

I stick data I will almost certainly never access again on glacier deep archive. Dirt cheap. Good place to escrow data.

peregus@lemmy.world on 29 Jun 08:01 collapse

Wasabi have similar pricing to glacier, but without the limitation

undefined@links.hackliberty.org on 29 Jun 05:36 collapse

What do you do if your hardware is housed at home with crappy residential upload speeds?

It’s a genuine question because I’ve settled for hosting on Storj, but because my friends and family can’t be bothered to connect via its client I’m running a WebDAV rclone proxy on a VPS over Tailscale. So not only am I paying for the storage itself, I’m also paying for transferring the data and on top of all that, it defeats the point of Storj being P2P from and end-user perspective.

undefined@links.hackliberty.org on 03 Jul 20:22 collapse

I got downvoted for this? 😂

iso@lemy.lol on 27 Jun 13:43 next collapse

Why should I use JuiceFS instead of rclone though?

ralfrandom@discuss.tchncs.de on 27 Jun 15:44 next collapse

I think rclone has somewhat bad latency, at least from prior experience (albeit with Google Drive). JuiceFS seems to cache locally and can run my Immich instance, etc. With pretty good performance

aodhsishaj@lemmy.world on 27 Jun 16:34 collapse

Use rclone

tobogganablaze@lemmus.org on 27 Jun 14:12 next collapse

I payed about $350 for my 20TB drives, which at the rate offered here would pay of in less then 3 months. Add some overhead in for a NAS and some extra drives for a raid and it still easily pays of in half a year.

Shitty deal.

peregus@lemmy.world on 29 Jun 08:00 collapse

And the very first sentence says:

Unless you self-host at home on your own NAS

Rentlar@lemmy.ca on 27 Jun 14:20 next collapse

In Canada, external hard drives of 8-20TB capacity show up every now and then for a rate of C$20/TB (US$14.50) so it won’t take more than 3 months to offset that cost. As a backup, online s3 storage might be reasonable.

E - Speak of the devil: lemmy.ca/post/23948873

peregus@lemmy.world on 29 Jun 08:03 collapse

Guys, read the article first! At least try, at the beginning it says:

Unless you self-host at home on your own NAS

palitu@aussie.zone on 29 Jun 23:31 collapse

Is that your article ?

I am in a bit of a funny position, I am volunteering in an underdeveloped country, and have my immich instance running at my in-laws. But I don’t have access to my NAS. Backblaze would be ideal!

What have you done to run it there? Is it as easy as mounting juicefs, and pointing immich dirs there?

I have about 700gb that would have to be migrated, any ideas on that? Or would it be relatively transparent to immich just copy and pasting?

ralfrandom@discuss.tchncs.de on 30 Jun 07:21 collapse

Yes :)

In theory it should be as easy as copy and pasting, but I don’t know if that wouldn’t fail because of a timeout. Though, I have managed to wget a Google photos backup directly into JuiceFS and extract + process it there, just took like a day of time.

Mounting your Immich dirs there is all it should take. I would be careful with database directories/sqlite, they seem to bug out when mounted in JuiceFS

palitu@aussie.zone on 30 Jun 10:04 collapse

Yeah. I would keep the db local, and probably the thumbs and intermediary photos too. But the full resolution would probably be in S3.

dB’s are not good on object store, and not good running over the internet. I wish they had native S3 storage, as that would allow for high speed access, where as this will download to the server, then upload to the client which will add latency.

Cheers