Hacker News Reader

Comment by unixhero | Hacker News Reader

Useful, but it contains factual errors: >S3 File storage. Not directly used for mounting, but you can directly download files from HTTP.

You most certainly can mount S3 buckets, and its done frequently in data pipelines throughout the industry[0].

>S3 Glacier Low cost storage system for backups and archives and such

Sure but it would be good to include why there is a tradeoff in price, why is it low cost? For Glacier its intention is to provide storage, but rarely fetch data, as it is very slow.

[0] https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse

View on HN

It's a one-line summary, not an in-depth explanation or comparison. "Not directly used for mounting" is a good summary of the intended use.

How is that a factual error? It didn't say that mounting was impossible, just that it isn't directly used for mounting. How did you conclude that it's done frequently throughout the industry? What percentage of S3 customers do you think does this? If I would have to guess I'd say less than 1%. But I am happy to learn I am wrong.

Not OP, but my current gig is literally building streaming data pipelines on top of S3 using lambdas that only have a few hundred MBs of RAM to process gigabytes or more of data. S3FS is as close as it comes to mounting in my book.

You are totally right, and your explanation is perfect. No need to bother.

You could also mount gmail accounts as a filesystem.

I beg to differ.

I have already argumented against it, and provided evidence for my statement [0].

My argument is logically airtight.

Yes, you can use a S3 bucket and Route53 to host a high availability, static website for mere pennies.

You should be wary of any hostilities between your site and it's users. Even though it can't be brought down, your wallet sure can be if you don't set it up really carefully.

You can simply retrieve the page constantly over a residential connection to drive up the costs to over hundreds of dollars

Reply on news.ycombinator.com