Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am considering using either Rackspace CloudFiles with JungleDisk or The Planet's CloudStorage for a webapp that needs fast read performance to serve very large video files.

The application uses some authentication backends that x-forward the files to be served through an nginx frontend. This setup requires that the files be stored on a mounted directory, which is what I understand JungleDisk does for Rackspace Cloudfiles and what The Planet's CloudStorage does natively.

JungleDisk is marketed mostly as a backup tool that can be used as a mounted drive, while The Planet advertises its cloudstorage as "unlimited storage" that is natively mounted as a NFS.

An old StorageCloud whitepaper makes some very bold claims about their performance being many times faster and consistently stable, but it's not really an unbiased source.

Does anyone have any experience with a similar scenario and has any insights about the subject?


share|improve this question

JungleDisk is a hack, works very well for personal storage, but i wouldn't use it for a server. In short, it's a local cache that fetches full files from either S3 or CloudFiles, then shares it on WebDAV for the local system to mount it.

Didn't know about The Planet's CloudStorage; but if it's like GoGrid's (which can be mounted via SMB, or fetched with rsync, besides an S3-like HTTP API), it looks a lot more appropriate for your purpose.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.