On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote: > > It occurred to me that if Tahoe implemented the S3 API (as a frontend, > rather than a backend), then it would Just Work with this and many other > tools. I suspect, from 1.2 ns of thinking about it, that it would be a > pretty good match, since Tahoe and S3 have similarish performance > characteristics and semantics.
I think you are right! This is described in ticket #917. Patches welcome! > (One possible disadvantage with s3ql is that it uses s3 as a datastore, > but in a form that's unusable by anything else - it just ends up being a > bucket full of a mass of objects with meaningless names. But that's > just one of the design tradeoffs in this space...) Yes. That's also the trade-off that you get by using duplicity with its Tahoe-LAFS backend compared to using the "tahoe backup" system. Regards, Zooko http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/917# Amazon S3 compatible frontend _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
