I'm currently using B2 to store 120 GB of my personal backup and only paying 0.5 dollars per month for years and they still haven't change their price for years.
I'm currently using B2 to store 120 GB of my personal backup and only paying 0.5 dollars per month for years and they still haven't change their price for years.
Most older photo sharing applications expect the photos to simply be discoverable through the filesystem. There are some advantages to this, for example you can leverage the filesystem indicies to get fast directory listings, organization can be done using hierarchical folders which users already know, et cetera. On the other hand, you have to manage things like this, occasionally.
For a case like photo sharing I agree something like B2 is probably much better if it can be made to work. It's not too performance sensitive and outside of the photos themselves, there's minimal persistent state necessary for the system to function. Maybe there's a photo sharing application somewhere out there that is all "cloud native" (AKA runs in a container) and is designed to work with B2/S3 in this manner...
Both types of storage have their strong suits. BackBlaze is great if you need an S3-compatible storage option that won't "max out" at any particular storage limit. The Hetzner option will be great if you want to be able to tinker around with a Linux instance and not pay for egress bandwidth.
If you're dealing with an amount of data that is consistently at the 100GB and don't have a large amount of egress, BackBlaze is the cheaper option. If you are storing closer to 1TB and do a fair amount of egress, the Hetzner option will be cheaper.
Edit: no, I’m just plain wrong. I am paying and it’s about 4TB.