Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Storage Is Now Available To All Developers

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-put-yer-bits-in-there dept.

Cloud 62

aabelro writes "Google has announced at I/O 2011 the availability of their Storage service to all developers without the need for an invitation. The service has been enhanced with OAuth 2.0 support, simplified account management through the API Console, a new EU storage region, and a new API version."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093534)

w00t

Hmmm (2)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093564)

Now if I could just use it to store the honeycomb source.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093646)

Just be happy that everything of value will be in Ice cream sandwich.

Life is too short to focus on non-issues like this.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093890)

Yes, keep the spin going! We must defend Google at all costs despite the fact that they are locking down Android!

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36095940)

If Cyanogen isn't complaining, why should I listen to the whining of a Slashdot commenter? Have you, personally, even looked at any of the previous Android source code drops, or is this just theoretical whining on your part?

Re:Hmmm (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36097788)

Someone is running around, killing off Anonymous Cowards. I don't much care, though; haven't been targeted. That'd only be theoretical whining on my part.

Re:Hmmm (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36097950)

Locking down Android, really? The only thing that I saw was that they are not releasing the Honeycomb source because they do not want it on phones. They are, however, putting many of the features of Honeycomb into the next version of Android, with phone support, and that version will be open source.

Re:Hmmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093950)

Just be happy that everything of value will be in Ice cream sandwich.

The way they use Open Source only when it is most convenient for them tells me that every time they talk about the virtues of Open Source, they are actually full of shit. If you really think something is a virtue and if you are really committed to an ideal, you act on it whether or not it's the most convenient option.

Life is too short to focus on non-issues like this.

Like the people who, in the 21st Century, still get offended by nigger jokes because they're afraid of who might be looking if they laugh. That's definitely a non-issue. Anybody who thinks a joke is so terrible has obviously never seen actual racism before. Let me tell you something, there's no way you would confuse the two if you didn't have your head up your ass so you could worship at the altar of political correctness.

Re:Hmmm (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094922)

I must be such an easy mark for trolls, but I'll bite:

The way they use Open Source only when it is most convenient for them tells me that every time they talk about the virtues of Open Source, they are actually full of shit. If you really think something is a virtue and if you are really committed to an ideal, you act on it whether or not it's the most convenient option.

Or it tells you that they're realistic. FOSS is awesome - and Google's [google.com] numerous [wikipedia.org] contributions [google.com] should be applauded (even if they're a bit self serving). But according to you - we should act on something, even if we know that it's harmful to ourselves because we believe in a rigid immutable set of ideals... what are you, Catholic?

Re:Hmmm (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#36110188)

Why is it that some people insist that there is only one definition of "open source" when there are literally hundreds of open source licences in use? Claiming someone uses the wrong definition and capitalizing your idealogical version does not make you in the right.

Re:Hmmm (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36097912)

I wouldn't use it to store any source, you know Google looks at everything you upload. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the TOS says that they can do whatever they want with the code you upload.

Re:Hmmm (1)

chrish (4714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36107354)

PROTIP: Encrypt anything "interesting" before storing it in the Cloud, regardless of whose Cloud you're working with.

rsync (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093640)

Why not allow rsync to work (via ssh for security)?

Re:rsync (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093848)

Why not allow rsync to work (via ssh for security)?

Don't know The Answer, but rsync is legendary for using lots of memory during the sync process (and CPU)

Re:rsync (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36094090)

Why not allow rsync to work (via ssh for security)?

Don't know The Answer, but rsync is legendary for using lots of memory during the sync process (and CPU)

Man you're not kidding. My poor 386 could barely keep up!

Re:rsync (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099098)

Well you have to consider that for Google that would mean supporting millions of simultaneous rsyncs at the same time. That's a quite different load than running a single instance as you did on your i386

Re:rsync (1)

pjl5602 (150416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094030)

Sounds like you're assuming that it's a cluster of Linux servers (that they're going to give you access to) and it's a traditional file system interface underneath. I can almost certainly guarantee you that it's not. The interface you have is an HTTP looking endpoint. If what you want to do is backup data, you might want to take a look at duplicity. You should be able to drop in your Google Storage supported version of Boto and it should work. If you want to upload diff of content, I'm guessing you're going to be out of luck for that use case.

Re:rsync (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094374)

Google offers a ton of APIs that all use OAuth for authentication. Sounds good on the surface until you actually try to use it.

Have you ever tried to implement one of their APIs based on their documentation? Good luck with that. All of the google API documentation I have had to use is always lacking those little details that make the difference between having things work and being very frustrated. The docs get you 95% of the way there, and then you just have to hack at it, which sucks because there are more interesting things to hack.

Re:rsync (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36099568)

I agree the documentation is 95%, and this isn't a complete excuse, but every API also has fully working code samples in at least 1 language to get you that final 5%.

Whether or not you'd count code samples as a part of "documentation" is debatable. It's nice that they're there, and they always save my bacon, but IMO if you can't read the spec and then write your own code then the docs aren't quite ready.

I loathe this invitation 'nonsense' (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093642)

I don't get the logic behind this 'invitation' nonsense that companies especially Google employ. I do not get it. They did it with Gmail, Grand Central and Wave. With the latter, it just did not work out. Google lost more than gained. Why do they do it?

Re:I loathe this invitation 'nonsense' (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093688)

Maybe because during the invitation phase they don't have all the servers installed, yet. In the case of just about anything Google does, they need a million servers. They tried to hire me three times to do this sysadmin stuff. Apparently the free roller blades isn't enough.

I beg to differ (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093770)

Grand Central were doing fine. The moment they were bought, new registrations were stopped by Google. Shortly after that, registrations were 'by invitation only'.

Question is: What really happened after purchase that necessitated this type of action?

Re:I beg to differ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093838)

Isn't it kinda obvious? You get to learn the network between developers. You can track how information distributes, which conferences are influetntial, check if it's worth to sponsor hackatrones, which blog provide with information etc.

Re:I beg to differ (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094370)

Any time Google buys something, it's instantly famous. I hadn't heard of Grand Central before Google bought them, but I was one of those who immediately signed up. I'm sure I wasn't alone, and the servers probably couldn't handle all of it right away.

Re:I beg to differ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36095270)

Yep. I wish google would buy butt sex so my girlfriend would stop being a prude and let me ride her poop-chute.

Re:I beg to differ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36097898)

Won't happen. She'll still be too sore after I'm done with her, same as now.

Re:I beg to differ (1)

aarongadberry (1232868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36095074)

Grand Central did invitations before Google acquired them. I was waiting for one.

Re:I beg to differ (1)

rhook (943951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098022)

Grand Central were doing fine. The moment they were bought, new registrations were stopped by Google. Shortly after that, registrations were 'by invitation only'.

Question is: What really happened after purchase that necessitated this type of action?

My guess would be that because Grand Central was not well known and everyone always jumps on new Google products, that Google decided to stop new registrations until they migrated the service to one of their data centers, and made it invite only after that so that their servers wouldn't get hammered. It is probably also a strategy intended to build public interest, people always want what they cannot have.

Re:I beg to differ (1)

pr0t0 (216378) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098974)

GC was awesome! You could record conversations without the knowledge of the other party. The great thing about dealing with larger organizations is they already had a "call may be monitored" disclaimer so I didn't have to. It really did save my bacon once during a dispute with my mortgage broker...I got the rate we agreed on and victory was mine!

Tree of invitation links (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093790)

Skapare is probably right. Just as a resistor limits inrush current [wikipedia.org] into a reservoir cap or decoupling cap when an electrical device is powered on, an invitation system limits the inrush of new users to a system whose scalability hasn't yet been proven. But at first, when Orkut and Gmail were invite-only, I thought Google wanted to collect a map of who invited whom as a measure of determining which users knew other users personally and which users were likely to start inviting new users solely for the purpose of sending spam.

See also my previous thoughts on the subject [slashdot.org] .

Re:Tree of invitation links (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36097448)

... and which users were likely to start inviting new users solely for the purpose of sending spam.

I don't know if there is anything to that, but that's what I wondered as well. If done by invitation only, then it can create a chain that could allow you to break the links where referrals began to go to spammers.

However... collecting data to show who knows who is certainly a valid guess as well.

Re:Tree of invitation links (1)

wgibson (1345509) | more than 3 years ago | (#36097690)

But at first, when Orkut and Gmail were invite-only[...]

Orkut was invite only? That must have happened after Google took over. When I signed up with the service the sign-up was absolutely open.

Re:I loathe this invitation 'nonsense' (2)

cyrus0101 (1750660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093852)

Two reasons come to mind immediately:
  • limited access means a smaller group to monitor for problems. Buzz, for example, went live across the board and had serious privacy issues. If they'd done it on a smaller scale, maybe they could have nipped it in the bud.
  • illusion of exclusivity makes the product seem cooler. You want what you can't have.

Re:I loathe this invitation 'nonsense' (5, Insightful)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093944)

Why do they do it?

Economist: To limit supply and create more demand for the product
Programmer: To allow time for beta testing
Business Manager: So the company is not responsible if something breaks
Sociologist: Ingroup members will be positively biased towards the product, outgroup members will want in
System admin: this job sucks, anyone got some weed?

Re:I loathe this invitation 'nonsense' (1)

aprentic (1832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36095494)

"Economist: To limit supply and create more demand for the product"
The might be why a marketing guy would do it but an economist would probably disagree.
A firm should not be able to affect demand by limiting supply. At best they can affect the price and quantity demanded, and that's only if it's a monopoly good.
Demand is a function of consumer choice. If you imagine the econ 101 supply-demand picture it's the convex, downward sloping curve.
If a single manufacturer of a commodity good reduces supply the marginal increase in price should incentivize other manufacturers to supply more. Now a monopoly supplier can reduce supply to maximize their profits but that's only because they move the price-supply point farther to the left (up) of the demand curve.
Caveat: This is the basic supply-demand model. It does not take into account things like luxury goods (which have demand curves with upward sloping portions) or more advanced models that start throwing in all kinds of other factors and interactions.

Re:I loathe this invitation 'nonsense' (1)

aprentic (1832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36095524)

"Economist: To limit supply and create more demand for the product"
This might be why a marketing guy would do it but an economist would probably disagree.
A firm should not be able to affect demand by limiting supply. At best they can affect the price and quantity demanded, and that's only if it's a monopoly good.
Demand is a function of consumer choice. If you imagine the econ 101 supply-demand picture it's the convex, downward sloping curve.
If a single manufacturer of a commodity good reduces supply the marginal increase in price should incentivize other manufacturers to supply more. Now a monopoly supplier can reduce supply to maximize their profits but that's only because they move the price-supply point farther to the left (up) of the demand curve.
Caveat: This is the basic supply-demand model. It does not take into account things like luxury goods (which have demand curves with upward sloping portions) or more advanced models that start throwing in all kinds of other factors and interactions.

Two reasons (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093956)

  1. It provides a slower ramp-up, so they have more time to react to demand.
  2. It lets them map a network of you and all your friends, if they don't know it already.

ngga tau judul apa (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093900)

weewe....

asem ngga tau nulis apa ni.......

http://azhoka-rjnet.blogspot.com/2011/05/10-tempat-paling-alami-di-muka-bumi.html

so they started a fresh round of advertising (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093916)

because that's how they run their projects.

anyhow, it would be extremely nice if slashvertisements would include the PRICING of the SERVICE. you know, like, normal advertising rules apply..(the free portion is a joke).

anyhow, from the article,
"GSD is currently not integrated with Google Docs and Google Apps accounts do not work, only regular Google accounts, but that is going to change in the future.

Pricing is set at $0.17/GB/month, higher than that of the similar Amazon S3 pricing which is set at $0.15/GB/month for 11 nines durability and $0.1/GB/month with 99.99 durability. Uploading and accessing are the same at $0.1/GB and $0.01/1000 HTTP requests. Amazon has progressive discounts for storage in excess of 50 TB, 400TB, 500TB and so on. There is no SLA for GDS yet, but Google promises to provide one when the service will be open to all those interested."

sounds like beta to me still. and how they promise to provide one when the service is open to all those interested if it's open for all interested now? uh? wtha? brainmelt.

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094042)

Currently it's free. You get the SLA you would expect for free.

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094216)

Currently it's free. You get the SLA you would expect for free.

You mean " You get the SLA you should expect for free". From a lot of the comments I see in open source software forums people expect a lot.and complain whan they don

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094096)

And I just asked for a invite too!

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36094196)

But with Amazon's recent downtime, they won't be able to lay claim to 99.99% up-time for at least 5 years, assuming they have no more down time. But yes, theeir data is still there.

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36095502)

But with Amazon's recent downtime, they won't be able to lay claim to 99.99% up-time for at least 5 years, assuming they have no more down time. But yes, theeir data is still there.

Actually, the 4 9's and 11 9's refer to Amazon S3 service, which is basically cloud storage. The sites that went down were using Amazon EC2 cloud server. The former is pure disk storage, the latter provides computation. You can link S3 to EC2 for permanent storage (ECB?), as otherwise it's upload your files, do your processing, get your results, and shut down, losing everything.

S3 didn't go down, and I don't think EC2 did either, but the ECB service for the two did so websites hosted purely on Amazon died, while services using one or the other didn't (e.g., Dropbox uses S3 only).

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (1)

JimFive (1064958) | more than 3 years ago | (#36098108)

11 9's would mean about .0003 seconds of downtime per year. That's something like 1 dropped packet. I don't believe that to be possible. On the other hand, it's also probably not detectable.
--
JimFive

Re:so they started a fresh round of advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36097228)

Actually, it does have an SLA: http://code.google.com/apis/storage/docs/sla.html

Google Apps accounts also work, AFAIK. You're quoting from the initial announcement a year ago, not the announcement that was made yesterday. Yesterday's announcment (from the horse's mouth) is here http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2011/05/google-storage-for-developers-open-to.html

Like Azure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093962)

It sounds like this is similar to the Azure storage that Microsoft gives all MSDN subscribers. Granted, MSDN is not free, but if you or your company has already purchased a subscription, you can get quite a bit of storage, compute and and SQL Azure resources for free.

Re:Like Azure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36094702)

> ... you can get quite a bit of storage, compute and ...

I do wish we could quash this use of "compute" as a noun. We don't say "quite a bit of store" yet say "lots of compute ".

What's wrong with the old trusty noun "computation"? It has been around for 150 years after all.

Re:Like Azure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36095640)

"Compute" has been a noun since the 16th century. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compute [reference.com]

Like Amazon. Three years later. And costs more? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36095274)

Like Amazon. Three years later. And costs more?

Yawn. Wake me up when the world realizes these are ultracommodities and the real price wars begin.

Like Amazon. 5GB. Free. (1)

globaljustin (574257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100564)

So what their prices are slightly higher? 5GB of free hosting is welcome.

Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36095620)

As a long time user of dropbox.com this google offering seems silly to me.

Re:Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36096180)

Google knows security.

Re:Dropbox (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36100126)

So does Truecrypt.

FREE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36097042)

A year later, at I/O 2011, Google announced the availability of the service to any developer with a Google account, offering a free subscription including up to 5GB of storage until the end of this year. ...

is that -- offering free -- forever -- if you sign up before the end of this year -- or, free for this year... until the end of this year -- and then they will charge starting next year -- for the account that you got for free this year?

Just what I always wanted! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36097526)

Ooooh, goody! Now I can store all my important source code on hard drives owned by another software company!

I have waited years for this.

Re:Just what I always wanted! (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36101018)

Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;). Torvalds, Linus

Re:Just what I always wanted! (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36122514)

SO how does this work with their EULA, where by they claim that anything you store on their servers is technically theirs....???

Re:Just what I always wanted! (Facebook shill aler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36123904)

There is no EULA, there is a service agreement. Which states in section 6 that your content is yours and Google claims no ownership. And in section 7 they reserve the right to store and serve your content for the sole purpose of serving it *to you*.

At least read the stupid thing next time you Facebook shill. :)

"Free" is too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36100180)

"Free" as in we'll keep your data for you.
From the people that brought you the hidden gps location now "free" storage?
I've got a solution for the cloud, it goes something like this:
cat /dev/rand > cloud

Like Amazon. Three years later. And costs more? (1)

omigamegan (2145058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36103664)

Like Amazon. Three years later. And costs more? herve leger [regilt.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?