radious_co
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
69
Submissions
9
Member since
Nov 7
https://radious.co
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 6 years ago
Yuppp, I mangled tarsnap and rsync.net in my head
Comment · 6 years ago
Ooh I'm starstruck - Yeah, I confused rsync.net with tarsnap oof my bad haha. My apologies
Comment · 6 years ago
Yeah, I guess the word "nominal" is a little awkward in this case.
We meant it in the sense that most users... will not exceed 1 TB/month data movement, therefore the _nominal_ or _expected_ charge would be $5. Take myself for example, once my data was in the system, I maybe move 30 GB a month and that's it.
(Although we're dealing with ZFS datahoarders here... so some assumptions may need to be discarded ...)
---
> For the rent to own plan, the only thing you're paying after payoff is the bandwidth fee? (Which for minimal usage might be under $5 or $5 depending on the above answer) Is that right?
Yup. That's correct. You're just paying for a slot in the machine + bandwidth. If you need extra bandwidth, it's $5/TB.
Comment · 6 years ago
Bingo haha. That's exactly it. I'm not trying to hide ZFS or simplify it for the end-user. At least not yet.
It's all about creating products that we would want to use. So that's exactly what we did.
Comment · 6 years ago
rsync.net is expensive because they are more of a "cold-storage be-all and end-all" data sink. Their backend is AWS, and so the cost reflects that. I might be wrong on this, but I think they use Glacier.
Here, we are pretty much providing a datacenter hookup for your hard-drive. If that hard-drive fails, we can ship it to you for recovery, but that's on you.
The idea for this site is that most people with ZFS pools already have a mirror/RAIDZ setup at home, and would enjoy the peace of mind if they had one-extra data-sink to send their snapshots.
Therefore, true data-loss will occur if:
* Their house burns down
* AND the remote zfs.rent hard drive fails
---
Personally, I live about 20 minutes aways from my parents' house. I have two separate ZPools (one for my place, one for theirs). I sync the two every time I visit.
I wanted an extra cloud machine to sync to once a week or so -- you know, in case Northern California fires really get out-of-hand :/
---
EDIT: I went to rsync.net just to double-check. It looks like they are running their own infrastructure now.
https://www.rsync.net/products/locations.html
Maybe my memory is going haywire, but I swear I remembered reading that they used AWS as their backend.
Comment · 6 years ago
Also, I can enable IPv6. I think we get a block of /64 of IPv6 for every IPv4 address. Most people are worried about getting their hands on a dedicated IPv4 address (~$1/month @ most co-locations) so that's what I mentioned.
Comment · 6 years ago
Hi! We are currently working on a _simple_ account management portal backed by our PostgreSQL instance. This will print out a monthly table with your bandwidth usage/quota and provide a Web Interface + API to purchase more bandwidth, add drives, etc. Our design is API first, with a simple wrapper around the API as our Web UI. They both will be well-documented and functionally the same.
This Hacker News soft launch was mainly to see if we could generate enough users to purchase a second and third server and scale-out. And by the looks of it, we can!
---
As for downloading large files directly to the instance, I'm with you 100%. That's exactly one one of the use cases. (I'm looking at you: massive linux ISOs and +30 GB Xilinx toolchains.) Personally, I like to download them first to a remote machine (takes about 5-10 minutes for 30 GB) and slowly rsync them to my local dev machine with `rsync --partial --bwlimit=10M`.
Think of this service as $5/month DigitalOcean VPS, but it happens to have a hefty native storage unit passed through.
You can SSH into it and do whatever you want with it. In fact, you don't even have to run ZFS. You could run any filesystem -- EXT4, XFS, BTRFS, etc. Compute-wise, it's not going to be anything groundbreaking -- just a 16-core Ryzen 3700 with a couple of cores passed through to you. Ryzen CPUs support ECC and are still priced as consumer-CPUs which is fantastic.
The nice thing about KVM is that even if you don't explicity allocate CPU resources, if the guest machine needs to burst compute, it will "Steal time" from the hypervisor as long as there is extra headroom. This isn't the case with RAM. (For RAM, whatever you set, that is the hard maximum limit.)
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Yup. I believe ZFS supports sending incremental snapshots without having the decryption key.
However, it become a pain-in-the-ass if you have recursive snapshots where only some of the datasets are encrypted. I think... in order to accomplish this, you need to send separate batches of snapshots... one for each set of encrypted vs. decrypted.
E.g.
/zpool/tmp # not encrypted
/zpool/home/someone # not encrypted
/zpool/home/someone/thunderbird # encrypted
$ zfs snapshot -r /zpool zpool@today
# this will probably bork
$ zfs send -v -w -R -I zpool@yesterday zpool@today | ...
# but this will work
$ zfs send -v -R -I zpool/tmp@yeserday zpool/tmp@today | ...
$ zfs send -v -R -I zpool/home/someone@yeserday zpool/home/someone@today | ...
$ zfs send -v -w -R -I zpool/home/someone/thunderbird@yeserday zpool/home/someone/thunderbird@today | ...