Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it possible to 'mount', for ignorance of a better term, a cloud service like as Cloud Files or S3 to a linux / ubuntu server?

Ideally I'd like to be able to browse the remote location as if it were a local directory.

How is this done, if possible?

share|improve this question
add comment

5 Answers

How about s3fs? Performance is going to be pretty bad, but I know it's used with satisfaction by many people.

share|improve this answer
    
Performance really isn't that bad in the newer versions :) –  ben lemasurier Aug 30 '11 at 17:57
add comment

Judging from this discussion:

http://www.jungledisk.com and http://www.elasticdrive.com should do what you ask (never tried it).

share|improve this answer
    
Yup, you can use RS Cloud Files storage (or S3) as backing for a JungleDisk setup. –  phoebus Dec 31 '09 at 22:00
add comment

The Rackspace version of s3fs mentioned above is 'cloudfuse' and can be found here:

http://github.com/redbo/cloudfuse/

In both cases the solution is similar - a FUSE based connection.

share|improve this answer
add comment

S3QL provides a full featured UNIX filesystem for Amazon S3 buckets and even arbitrary SFTP servers.

They have a comparison page where they list the features compared to those of other filesystems for S3 like S3FS and S3Backer.

I've been using S3FS on an Ubuntu machine for a while but it doesn't support UNIX permissions. S3QL handles permissions and also offers encryption and compression. I highly recommend it.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The problem with cloudfuse is that it doesn't support full Unix filesystem semantics (you can't set the date/time stamp on files/objects once they're uploaded, and iirc you can't set user/group permissions), and it doesn't support things like symlinks or hard links. It also fully caches everything to be written to the local disk before it uploads anything, and it doesn't do chunking for the content to be uploaded.

All that makes it pretty tough to use as an remote filesystem alternative.

S3ql would be a lot closer to a proper remote filesystem alternative, if I could get confirmation that it does actually support using Rackspace Cloud Files as a backend, either directly or indirectly through a compatibility layer.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.