Hi,

Are there plans for Nirvanix to provide direct FTP access to the file system without the need to have to install an FTP proxy on customers computers?  If so when do you think this would be available?  This article seems to suggest that it is coming : http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/outsourcing/news/article.php/3725501

Thanks

 You can find the FTP Proxy at:

http://developer.nirvanix.com/files/folders/reference_code__applications/entry507.aspx

We do not host FTP Access but this mini-server can be hosted by you and presents a full FTP interface.  Let me know if you have any problems with the FTP Proxy.

Regards,
    Barry R.

I am aware of the FTP Proxy and have tried it.

We have already done alot of work around the Nirvanix API but we want to also leverage off some of the many FTP based client programs for getting bulk files in and out of the Nirvanix File System. 

The problem with asking our customers to install the FTP Proxy is that it is another app for them to have running and install and for them to be put off by. Many security / virus programs will stop extra ports from being opened - especially in corporates.  Additionally there are the Mac users - many of the early adopters use Macs - don't want to also ask them to install MS mono and a proxy.

The problem with us hosting it is that we would have to setup servers which could handle double the bandwidth (ie as it passes files through) which would negate many of the features of using Nirvanix in the first place.

I believe if you provide the FTP access at Nirvanix you would speed up the adoption of the service overall as there is alot of tried and tested FTP client software out there.

Thanks,

Michael

While not a problem in the technology of our system we do not offer a standard hosting environment which introduces issues when setting up FTP, shell access, and other functionality.  This does allow us to do unique things like offering the SDN through a seamless interface that relies on the ability to redirect and move the client around.  Keep in mind to access our system we do not have global logins other than the Master account which means you will not be able to login with a standard FTP login.  Because we require the application key it would be unreasonable to limit your child accounts across all of our customers.  This means there is no straight forward solution that allows us the ability to offer FTP access other than the FTP Proxy that is linked to one specific application.

Keep in mind that FTP is a fairly poor format due to security problems, recovery on packet loss and a host of other reasons.  A more modern solution would be SFTP or something similar which does not have a set of ubiquitous clients across all platforms.

I look forward to hearing your comments or a suggestion that could solve these issues.

Regards,
   Barry R.

The way I see is that the FTP servers would be independent of the core SDN and sit somewhere in your network such that all security and integrirty of the SDN remained as it is now.  I see that it would have similar functionality to your FTP proxy, but sat somewhere in your network such that the latency between the FTP server and the SDN was very small and didn't go over outside interfaces that required extra bandwidth costs for Nirvanix. There are FTP servers available that allow you to plug in your own authentication and file-system modules, so wouldn't be a need to develop a special FTP server.

The login issue should be able to be solved by making an absolute user name from the child account user name and the appkey and getting the customer to insert that as the user name into the FTP client - eg myacct1#appkey.

The good FTP clients are starting to support SFTP and SSL now.  The thing is that these core programs are all developed and do some great back-up and sync options which could be offered to customers.

Or alternatively is there any data centre that has low latency to the Nirvanix SDN and negligible bandwidth costs between it and the Nirvanix SDN where we could hire a colo box to put such a system as described above (or maybe you guys can provide somewhere at your centre and I will arrange the software)?

Cheers,
Michael

 These are good points you bring up but for now the best solution we can offer is the FTP Proxy.  Because we do not disclose the location of our nodes (they may change based on availability) we cannot offer space within our data centers. Additionally, for security reasons we do not allow other applications to exist along side of our system at this time.  Even if you were located in the same building the transfer costs are set per plan and right now would not change the cost.  If you need to upload large amounts of data (> 5 TB) then please contact us so we can assist you.  We are always willing to work to help you get started. 

Please contact customersupport@nirvanix.com or contact us on the live chat if you wish to go into more detail on the solution you wish to provide.

Regards,
     Barry R.

bluejupiter: I see your dilemna... I don't know how easy it would be modify/rewrite the proxy so that it worked on your server instead of the client desktop (ie. clients FTP you > you HTTP nirvanix). It's a little bandwidth heavy (client > you > nirvanix), but it keeps your clients in their familiar FTP world. Interestingly, infinite bits has done something similar for S3 (I wonder how hard it would be to convince them to build a Nirvanix fork of it?).

On the end-user side, I'd also love to see some of the popular FTP software support Nirvanix as they have started supporting S3 (ForkLift and Transmit on Mac), or see a port of JungleDisk. Those developers might need some motivation, though (Barry, $$??).

Lastly, another S3 tool that would be great to see a port/fork of is the jetS3t java application set, which is (predominantly) aimed at service providers (like you, bluejupiter?) - your server fetches tokens & helps authentication, but the client uploads directly to S3. It's as ugly as the next Java application, but it is extensible and actually seems to run pretty well on the average Mac or PC... again, Barry, it would be great to see those developers supported/encouraged to add Nirvanix support as the approach suits both Nirvanix and service providers building on your service (although it admittedly doesn't address bluejupiter's gripe with making their clients install yet another custom app).

andjules:

bluejupiter: I see your dilemna... I don't know how easy it would be modify/rewrite the proxy so that it worked on your server instead of the client desktop (ie. clients FTP you > you HTTP nirvanix). It's a little bandwidth heavy (client > you > nirvanix), but it keeps your clients in their familiar FTP world. Interestingly, infinite bits has done something similar for S3 (I wonder how hard it would be to convince them to build a Nirvanix fork of it?).

I want to be clear that the FTP Proxy is meant to run on the server side at your installation and offer a way to connect for your clients.  Alternately you can also use it on the client for things like mass injestion of data.  No need to do a fork since this is the reason the FTP Proxy was written.

andjules:

On the end-user side, I'd also love to see some of the popular FTP software support Nirvanix as they have started supporting S3 (ForkLift and Transmit on Mac), or see a port of JungleDisk. Those developers might need some motivation, though (Barry, $$??).

Integration into an external FTP application would be fantastic.  We are never opposed to helping great products integrate with us as an end-point.  As far as motivation, it's always a possibility but only if the need is there.  A good business case should be made, feel to give us a call as we are always open to making it easier for users to integrate with our system.

 As far as secondary applications this is really up to our users to integrate if they can find a good way to make money at it.  Tools development can be a good market if you can find enough users.  Our focus is really making sure our services are easy to use and give everyone the ability to generate these applications.  You will find a number of applications written that use our Java SDK that can be a good starting point for exploring file systems and general IMFS operations.

Regards,
     Barry R.

Thanks for thge feedback.  The advantage that infinite bits and the like have is that they sit in scalable data center which has low latency to and zero cost to get to the storage (ie EC2).

For us it isn't so much that we have a huge chunk of data to get loaded - we want to make it easy for customers to upload/download/manage data without being scared off by ftp and other proxies that open up ports which cause warnings to pop up, etc.  I'm not sure if Jungle Disk opens up any ports but what I have seen is that they seem to store files in some proprietary way which makes it difficult for other programs to use if they go straight to the storage.

I don't know maybe it is better off to manage this somehow on the client and thus just have a proxy there after all - but for mac users would need to have a native proxy or in some language (eg java, ruby, etc) that didn't require a runtime such as mono to be installed.

BarryR:

I want to be clear that the FTP Proxy is meant to run on the server side at your installation and offer a way to connect for your clients.

Thanks for clearing that up, Barry... I had been mislead in my browsing of a few posts... I interpret what you are saying to mean that my clients can use a traditional FTP solution (no proxy, etc.) to connect to my server, where I proxy FTP services/protocol, but keep the uploads going to Nirvanix. So the only complaint is that our server doesn't have the same scalability and pays in-and-out costs and suffers latency. hmmm.

To advance the conversation, it seems that S3 doesn't offer this either... but through EC2 integration, it can be achieved. So, if Nirvanix ran their own customer-usable FTP instances with no (extra) in-out charges... no one is saying you couldn't charge a reasonable $ for it (EC2 is more flexible, but it is also a minimum of $72/month).