Re:S3 is files, but not a filesystem
by overstay8930 on Sunday March 10, 2024 @12:19PM
(#39660335)
We liked B2 but not enough to pay for IPv4 addresses, insane they advertise as a multi-cloud solution but basically kill any chance at adoption when NAT gateways and IPv4 charges are everywhere. We would literally save money paying B2 bandwidth fees (high read low write) but not when being pushed through a NAT64 gateway, or paying an hourly charge just to be able to access B2.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
How could they launch a cloud service like this and not have IPv6 in 2015? What other basic things did they cheap out on?
Most mayor cloud vendors are still not fully dual stack capable so it's not that surprising. And plenty of ISPs have barely started rollout, or even said they just wont.
I understand that AWS has 200 services, some of which are 20 years old, and making them all IPv6-ready would be hard and costly. Backblaze has one cloud service, and the public interface is a boring REST API over boring HTTPS.
Re:S3 is files, but not a filesystem
by overstay8930 on Tuesday March 12, 2024 @08:11AM
(#39678553)
AWS enabled dualstack S3 almost 10 years ago because object storage is pretty much the use case for IPv6.
I’m pretty sure the only other large object storage provider that is v4 only is Azure, and even then they offer a compatibility layer. Backblaze just flat out won’t work unless you pay extra to connect to them.
Honestly the only cloud provider I think you’re talking about is Azure, I don’t know of any other that are IPv4 only because it’s just cost prohibitive.
I also migrated, after asking for IPv6 for more than 3 years on reddit.
they does not seem to understand users on the b2 product. it's almost as if b2 is just a supplementary service from their backup service.
https://www.reddit.com/r/backblaze/comments/ij9y9s/b2_s3_not...
they've started internal v6 rollout with external coming afterwards. no timelines though, and I've waited for years
https://old.reddit.com/r/backblaze/comments/1av4r3g/b2_ipv6_...