Re: [Duplicity-talk] A duplicity backend for Amazon S3

[Brian Sutherland]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 11:01:11PM -0500, Ben Escoto wrote:
> >>>>> Brian Sutherland <address@hidden>
> >>>>> wrote the following on Mon, 1 May 2006 05:33:49 +0200
> 
> > > Hmm, perhaps you could move one or both keys to environment variables?
> > > That would be slightly more secure anyway.
> > 
> > Yep, that's much better;)
> > 
> > how do S3KEY and S3SECRET sound?
> 
> Fine with me.  If neither is in the URL I suppose the syntax would be
> like file://, and would just be s3+http://bucket_name.

Yep, I committed all this and updated the backend.

> > I have an account now, jinty.
> > 
> > It's probably easier if I just commit it myself rather than
> > peppering the mailing list with bugfix patches, though I don't think
> > you'll hear much from me once I've worked out the kinks.
> 
> Great, I added you as a member so you can fix any s3 bugs you run
> across.  I don't have much ability to maintain the s3 code anyway.

If others find bugs and I don't notice them, feel free to poke me with a
mail.

> Unless I subscribe...  I'm currently paying $60-70 per year for 10GB +
> 100GB bandwidth/month, and I get webserving and a couple other extras
> included.  For my usage patterns it's probably cheaper than S3.  I
> suppose the main selling points for S3 is its flexible contract and
> Amazon's reputation for reliability.

Yep, I think flexibility, reliability and cheapness for smaller amounts
of data are the big points here. Web application programming with S3 is
very interesting, especially if you want to store large amounts of data
and don't want the responsibility of maintaining a server with all that
data.

-- 
Brian Sutherland

Metropolis - "it's the first movie with a robot. And she's a woman.
              And she's EVIL!!"