[Box Backup] Alternate server

[Pablo Fernandez]

Hi

For this I'm sure we can all put together enough funding for this. GIven
the low rates they have I'm sure something like even $50 would go a long
way on testing... That would buy about 50 GB.

Best regards,
Pablo


On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 21:05 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: 
> Hi Stuart,
> 
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> 
> > Looking at the overview, the server daemon just keeps files in a tree - 
> > and not the real filenames either.  So services like S3 could be the 
> > server with some tweaking to use HTTP on the client end.  It is hard to 
> > find remote backup software for linux that does both encryption and 
> > incremental - so this could be a popular option.
> 
> Yes, you are not the first to suggest this and I am planning to implement 
> it. The main problems are:
> 
> * S3 does not support files over 2GB, so they have to be split up
> * S3 is unreliable (frequent failure to write a file, with error 500, that 
>   subsequently succeeds if retried)
> * S3 does not support the client-server bandwidth efficiency stuff that 
>   bbackupd does when talking to bbstored, so you have to run bbstored on 
>   an EC2 server
> * Testing all this would get expensive for me (monthly charges for an EC2 
>   server and S3 account and storage of test data)
> * I need to write an S3 emulator for the unit tests
> 
> Cheers, Chris.