

Show HN: I am building Reesd, a redundant storage service - thu
http://hypered.io/blog/2014-02-17-building-reesd/

======
fiatjaf
To use scp instead of a custom protocol (or even HTTP) is the neat thing here.
The possibilities are infinite.

Also, this makes me think about what today's services that run on HTTP could
run on top of basic Unix tools (like scp) instead of building their own
infrastructure on top of HTTP or something else (I couldn't think of any,
though, so I'm probably wrong in thinking this).

~~~
derefr
I really wish that more services that dealt with documents just exported
either a synthetic WebDAV or SSH server.

Mounting either of those server-types as a directory is simple and
straightforward on Windows, OSX, _or_ Linux, which is something that can't be
said for pretty much anything else.

I really wonder why S3 isn't (mainly) a WebDAV service, for that matter...

------
thu
Hi, author here. I know that some scp flags are not handled correctly or that
I don't provide a nice story to list and delete files, but I wanted to explain
what I was doing early. I plan to write a bit more, e.g. about how I use
Docker but I needed some kind of introduction first.

------
toomuchtodo
How would this be different than using Amazon S3 with s3cmd
([https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd](https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd))? I
understand scp is stock in all Linux distros, but Amazon S3 is extremely cost
competitive, allows archival to Glacier, and allows for immediate verification
of data integrity. It only takes moments to install s3cmd from the command
line.

Please don't think I'm being a debbie downer. I could be wrong.

TL;DR Why is this better than S3?

~~~
thu
The bare idea is very much similar to S3, i.e. a file store. I hope to bring a
different value with things like webhooks, Docker images rebuilt automatically
as files are uploaded (e.g. for reconfiguration prior to deployment on a
cluster of machines), ... agreed these additional features are vaporware but I
get started :)

Now, I really think that re-using scp is neat. For instance if you have tools
to manage a cluster of machines, it is entirely possible you are already using
SSH deploy keys (i.e. you have tools to manage SSH-based credentials). But
sure you are probably also using other services that requires API keys.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Thank you for the response! I look forward to trying your service!

------
louniks
Did I understand your purpose wrong, or can the same thing be achieved by
running sshd on a (cluster of) machine(s) that mount a
GlusterFS/Ceph/OtherDistributedRedundantFS volume?

~~~
thu
That would be similar. Indeed the redundant backend can be implemented in
various ways. Now I would really like to experiment with Bup to provide
historization in addition to deduplication (again this could be implemented
with some underlying file systems, but I really like Git/Bup).

------
N0RMAN
like tarsnap ([https://www.tarsnap.com/](https://www.tarsnap.com/))?

~~~
thu
The beauty of Tarsnap is to provide a tar-like command-line tool. Here, while
the later goal is to provide storage in a more generally accessible way, the
beauty is to use scp as-is, which you already have (if you're a developer).

A client-side encryption tool could be implemented and use any scp accessible
hosts, but that would not be really a Tarsnap equivalent: there is still the
problem of avoiding redundant storage and traffic. Bup could be a solution
here.

