radious_co

5 ms·

1.
by radious_co 6y ago
Yuppp, I mangled tarsnap and rsync.net in my head
2.
by radious_co 6y ago
Ooh I'm starstruck - Yeah, I confused rsync.net with tarsnap oof my bad haha. My apologies
3.
by radious_co 6y 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
4.
by radious_co 6y 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.
5.
by radious_co 6y 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 p
6.
by radious_co 6y 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.
7.
by radious_co 6y 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, a
8.
by radious_co 6y ago
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=zfs+red...
9.
by radious_co 6y 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 accompli