undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmapgrep10y ago0 comments

> S3 is not an FTP service it is a distributed object store.

Not really, the only "object" you can store, Amazon's language notwithstanding, is effectively a file. It's not like you could give it something that needed to be serialized.

And it's hard to see how it's "distributed" when your bucket price varies "based on the location of your bucket" as Amazon puts it.

It's probably more redundant than FTP, but saying S3 is like FTP is a reasonable shorthand and cuts through a lot of the marketing BS.

0 comments

12 comments · 5 top-level

Goladus10y ago· 5 in thread

The only real resemblance at all to FTP is that you use GET and PUT instead of filesystem commands. I mean, I guess if you really don't understand what FTP is and have no desire to understand how S3 is different from posix, then saying you have to use S3 like you use FTP kind of works. But it would be misleading to everyone else.

> It's probably more redundant than FTP

FTP is a transfer protocol, it says nothing about redundancy of the data on the back end. You could put an FTP server in front of an ext4 filesystem, and NTFS filesystem, an NFS mount, or maybe even S3.

WhitneyLand10y ago

Using FTP as shorthand is better than "Object Store", which sounds like the marketing BS this is designed to avoid.

Pxtl10y ago

FTP implies a specific protocol.

"File Server" or something like that would be better. You're quite right that "Object" is worthless terminology in this case - "Object" is basically nerdspeak for "thing".

1 more reply

numbsafari10y ago

FTP is a terrible shorthand because it's confusing and archaic. S3 doesn't even natively support FTP.

Calling it a "file server" is way more reasonable.

Goladus10y ago

How is "Object Store" marketing bs? What is the proper term for an S3 object? It's not file, because file is a term that comes from the context of a filesystem, which is what S3 is not.

Read the S3 docs: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects....

That is the technical term they've chosen to describe the key, its value, and all its associated metadata. As far as terms go, it's rather straightforward, in my opinion. They probably didn't use "file" because that usually implies a filesystem, which is specifically what S3 is not.

Also, go ahead and check out the history of the term "Object Store": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_storage

1 more reply

sbilstein10y ago

Object store is what it is...FTP would be marketing BS implying something that the service isn't at all.

1 more reply

Patrick_Devine10y ago· 1 in thread

How about "Web File Server"? I think mentioning "FTP" in the "It's like" column is reasonable, but I thought it was confusing in the name.

Goladus10y ago

Yeah I have no problem with drawing some comparisons to FTP. It's definitely like FTP in the sense that there's this step where you have to get the data you want to deal with then put it back; but that's really where the similarities end.

tracker110y ago· 1 in thread

Maybe Simply... "Amazon File Server" ?

Goladus10y ago

The main problem with that is that virtually all of Amazon's original target audience would have seen "Amazon File Server" and assumed it was a "File Server" like every other "file server" they'd ever heard of, which either exported a file system such as NFS or Samba or used ftp or http to serve files-- and in the latter case, calling it a "file server" rather than an ftp server or web server would be rare.

Since S3 was none of those things, they needed a different name.

curun1r10y ago

> Not really, the only "object" you can store, Amazon's language notwithstanding, is effectively a file. It's not like you could give it something that needed to be serialized.

It's not "Amazon's language"...your thinking is too programming-language-centric. Object has a much more general meaning. Amazon didn't invent the term blob (binary large object) and S3 is basically a blob store.

dsmithatx10y ago

FTP is File Transfer Protocol. S3 is not for transferring files and it's not a protocol. It's a file bucket or object store is appropriate. I use S3 to store static content and then use Cloudfront as my CDN. I think comparing it to FTP is rather confusing to say the least. Static content includes things like html, css, javascript not just jpgs or what have you.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

12 comments · 5 top-level

Goladus10y ago· 5 in thread

> It's probably more redundant than FTP

WhitneyLand10y ago

Using FTP as shorthand is better than "Object Store", which sounds like the marketing BS this is designed to avoid.

Pxtl10y ago

FTP implies a specific protocol.

"File Server" or something like that would be better. You're quite right that "Object" is worthless terminology in this case - "Object" is basically nerdspeak for "thing".

1 more reply

numbsafari10y ago

FTP is a terrible shorthand because it's confusing and archaic. S3 doesn't even natively support FTP.

Calling it a "file server" is way more reasonable.

Goladus10y ago

How is "Object Store" marketing bs? What is the proper term for an S3 object? It's not file, because file is a term that comes from the context of a filesystem, which is what S3 is not.

Read the S3 docs: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UsingObjects....

Also, go ahead and check out the history of the term "Object Store": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_storage

1 more reply

sbilstein10y ago

Object store is what it is...FTP would be marketing BS implying something that the service isn't at all.

1 more reply

Patrick_Devine10y ago· 1 in thread

How about "Web File Server"? I think mentioning "FTP" in the "It's like" column is reasonable, but I thought it was confusing in the name.

Goladus10y ago

tracker110y ago· 1 in thread

Maybe Simply... "Amazon File Server" ?

Goladus10y ago

Since S3 was none of those things, they needed a different name.

curun1r10y ago

> Not really, the only "object" you can store, Amazon's language notwithstanding, is effectively a file. It's not like you could give it something that needed to be serialized.

dsmithatx10y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse