Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fire-Dragon-DoL | Hacker News Reader

I wish digitalocean offered decent pricing for spaces (s3). Unfortunately it starts at 5$, which is an enormous price for storing 70 small images, but s3 would greatly simplify my server management moving state entirely outside the server (managed database + managed object storage)

View on HN

You could use Cloudflare R2, it's pretty cheap overall.

I did not realize they have an s3 compatible service

> price for storing 70 small images

Do you have to use an object store in that case? Or does it have to be separate from whatever application instance?

I don't have to use an object store, but it makes the cost of setting up a server more expensive if I use the filesystem, if I delete the instance, the data is gone. A volume kinda offset this, but it's way less portable and accessible only by one instance at a time

The peace of mind of managed is nice, all I have to think about is running the app, without having to deal with making sure db and files don't get lost

At that level I think I'd just put the images in the database.

In the git repo even

The images are supplied by the users, so that wouldn't be an option

That's an option, but I want to keep things simple and the assumption is usually "filesystem" but weirdly most libraries assume S3 usage. I don't think I've seen native support for db-stored images in any of the libraries I use, which is sad but a reality.

Maybe not directly in libraries but there's a few programs to make a fuse filesystem backed by a database.

Ya cant just throw em at a blob type field/column?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com