[brianwski]

> It is surprising that they didn't make it compatible with the S3 API .... The lack of scalable front-end load balancing is shown by the fact that they require users to first make an API call to get an upload URL

And... you answered your own question. :-) We reduce our operating costs by not having as many load balancers in the datacenter and pushing off the responsibility to the API. It all comes from our traditional backup product where we wrote all the software on both sides so we could save money this way.

With that said, we are actively considering offering an S3 compatible API for a slightly higher cost (basically what it would cost us to deploy the larger load balancing tech).

[mwcampbell]

I, for one, prefer the directness of not having to go through a front-end proxy. It probably eliminates some failure modes. I think that, instead of Backblaze providing an S3-compatible API, someone should do an open-source S3-compatible front-end for B2, that any interested user can run on a cheap VPS.

[narsil]

I work at https://kloudless.com. While not S3-compatible, we offer a similar proxy that provides a single API to multiple storage services such as Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, SharePoint, etc. We've also released support for S3 and Azure and are looking into B2.

[khc]

If someone writes a jclouds provider for B2, you can then use https://github.com/andrewgaul/s3proxy to interface with it

[toomuchtodo]

https://libcloud.apache.org/

[sagivo]

S3 compatible API is the only reason preventing us from migrating to your cheaper option right now.

[AYBABTME]

Wouldn't be very hard to make your own proxy.

[Gigablah]

Famous last words :)