I Need a Network datastorage, too.

In my case I need one container limited for one datacenter. And one more for any datacenter.

It will be great you can build some service for that.

I am looking for a shared volume I can mount on several nodes so that files/data written by one node is available to other nodes in my cluster. This mounted volume should have a lifecycle independent of my nodes. While S3 and other object stores are great for some things, the speed and latency of reading/writing files to them is unacceptable in my use case (caching lots of images)

The problem is it'd need to be competitive with Amazon S3. ...and if we really wanted a CDN/co-location S3 -> CloudFront is so convenient and easy. That said, it'd be nice if DigitalOcean had object storage. RackSpace does as well and I think it makes sense for a cloud hosting company. Though in all honesty I doubt I'd use it over S3 due to all of the features of S3 and all of the other AWS services (aside from CloudFront) that just work with it.

DigitalOcean would truly need to remain competitive here. I just don't know if it'd be worthwhile for them.

Object storage is not important for me, I just need to attach new disks to droplets.

DO should try introduce the creation of volumes and attaching to droplets and also the services like S3, being a cloud hosting provider and providing just a VPS is not enough, AWS got tones of cloud services, at least DO can introduce some ( most important services for customers )

to be clear I would like s3 object storage and more disk-space as two separate things, got an e-mail, hopefully the votes + this comment will flag up ;)

I'm still up mainly for Object Storage - this way I won't need to create extra machine to server files. I don't need to worry about backups, server load, replication etc.
I believe that quite a lot of people that are hosting big files, that do generate lot of traffic could move from S3 if the price would be right.

I just need to add disks. I don't need Object Storage.

Oh yes please give us both features. Both features have different benefits.
Network Storage / ObjectStorage:
+ can be optimized for shared Objects
+ Nativ Redundanz
+ Nativ Replication
+ Nativ Scaleable
- network load vs latency

Bigger Local(Host- or Rack-based) Storage (HDD or SSD):
+ lower latency
- mountable only for one node

I think both have their legitimacy and cases.

Annotation for Object Storage
- it will be nice to chose location limitation for the Storage
- automatice replications (master & master) over different locations
- storage limitation/monitoring/alert (GB / TB / PB / EB)
- multiple storage (as example: shared global, only location, clusterXYZ, etc)

thanks for your time

Still vote on old idea, It simpler to just add space with in DigitalOcean

This would be enough to make me seriously consider returning to DO. I made a hard choice a while back to leave and have tried numerous competitors (managed and unmanaged).

Local storage options would be nice, but object would be *really* nice to have...

For me it would be very useful for some projects, now I use S3. But I need local storage more.

I like this idea, but being able to add storage capacity to an existing droplet is more important to me.

Real storage alternative to S3 and others would be really great.

Especially with CDN.

Especially with unmetered bandwidth (so naive), at least with much lower prices for bandwidth, just in style of DO.

I am using digitalOcean + S3 storage already. I do not need Digital Ocean to bring S3 alternative, unless it is much more cheaper. I need it to bring extra disk attachable. Droplets comes with small SSD drives, which is OK, but I it would be really awesome to have additional local HDD which can be mounted as local drive. Buying expensive droplet just because of bigger HDD is not an option. Some projects need to store terrabytes of local data on local drive. Anyway, I also vote for S3 alternative, the traffic there is hell expensive.

An S3 alternative provided by DO would be perfect. Less ideal would be a change to policy so that S3 traffic is not attributed to bandwidth, ie treated as a private network.

I vote for DO option to allow for increasing storage with competitive pricing.

Object storage is not important for me, I just need to attach new disks to droplets (SAN)

I currently use DreamHost's "DreamObjects", which works okay, but they seems to have random down-times.

I would happily switch to DigitalOcean if they offered the same service for a similar (or cheaper) cost.

In particular, if there could be a savings on downloading fees, that would make it more appealing.

storage incease to existing droplets would be perfect, in the same network instead of external storage. love to see this service offered ASAP.