onlyoffice-licensed VS s3ql

I made an image for a small business which is available on the Docker Hub and on Github for exactly this purpose as no recent image was available to download: https://github.com/cmwedding-it/onlyoffice-licensed

Is this meaningfully different from https://github.com/s3ql/s3ql ?

S3 semantics are generally fairly terrible for file storage (no atomic move/rename is just one example) but using it as block storage a la ZFS is quite clever.

i used to use [0]s3ql on-top of "slow" fuse storage. it comes with its own caching layer and some strategies around handling larger blobs of data efficiently even at high latency with ease but its a non shared filesystem. you mount/lock it only once per system. otherwise this was a perfect solution to me at the time.

[0] s3ql: https://github.com/s3ql/s3ql

Off the cuff, you can probably use s3ql or something similar as a posix compatible abstraction layer over b2.

I use a S3QL mount to store user data, but do hacks and keep the 4-5 log files, the cache, templates, and tmp stored locally on file systems.

Another alternative to rclone mount is S3QL, which in my experience, is much faster (https://github.com/s3ql/s3ql).

An option may be to use https://github.com/sismics/docs and enable S3 support using https://github.com/s3ql/s3ql

Thank you! It wasn't s3fs-fuse I was remembering, but their github site referenced the project I was looking for: s3ql

I’ve been using s3ql to mount an S3-backed filesystem for the Nextcloud data folder. It has been reasonably fast and very stable so far (~1.5 years, 270GB hosted).

Well - I am using s3ql. It builds an encrypted file system into an S3 bucket, and works quite nicely and reliably. I started using that before Linode offered S3, and I was not keen on sharing my files with any of the big providers. So, my files currently are on S3, but not directly from Nextcloud, but with the s3ql layer inbetween.