Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

We are constantly running out of space on our backup server so I want to move the backups to S3. Does it make sense to run Bacula on top of s3fs? Does anybody have experience with that? Is it reliable? What about bandwidth use? Can I expect s3fs to work nicely on Debian 5.0?

share|improve this question

theres no reason why s3fs won't work reliably under debian 5 that I'm aware of.

Re bandwidth, you need to understand that your backups may run a lot slower, they can only run as fast as the bandwidth you have to amazon because everything is pushed over the internet to S3. On this basis you need to carefully consider your data volume being backed up, the bandwidth you have available and consider whether this is going to exceed the window you have available to conduct your backups in.

share|improve this answer

I personally prefer S3QL over S3FS. Here's a great feature comparison table (made by S3QL, so it is biased).

If you are at all concerned about bandwith, S3QL's compression and de-duplication are certainly advantages.

share|improve this answer

s3fs developer here :)

Can I expect s3fs to work nicely on Debian 5.0

Yes, I primarily develop under Debian (now squeeze)

Bandwidth use will be slightly higher than something such as FTP due to the HTTP overhead. As ccame mentioned, it's limited to your server's upstream bandwidth. I've benchmarked s3fs from EC2 instances at rates over 100mb/s

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.