I think they have that now right? Well, it's to be officially released: https://www.digitalocean.com/products/storage/object-storage/

Once this is implemented, there will be no reason for not choosing DigitalOcean. I am using rancher as container management, and docker instance might be distributed and moved between hosts. shared storage (s3 compatible) will be an awesome feature.

Implementing NFS is complicated especially on CoreOS, and looking at the pricing of DO's block storage, it will be cost-inefficient to be implemented by my own.

Low latency, datacenter-specific Swift (or S3 compatible in general) object storage is the missing piece. Having to 'outsource' object storage to AWS or Backblaze or even OVH is a kludge solution that has performance impacts.

Block storage is nice, but too limited.

Missing piece.

Especially a ReST//HTTP like solution like s3 is very useful for simple things like common config files and scripts. It does not feel worth it to pay for a droplet, just to host 5 text files.

Here's one solution:
https://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean/suggestions/15574095-add-minio-to-one-click-apps

As a note, block storage was recently implemented, FWIW: https://www.digitalocean.com/company/blog/block-storage-more-space-to-scale/ (not the same, I know)

Block Storage is almost similar to S3, but is not independent. It would be great if can access to the storage without having to attach to any droplet.

yes please..

The competition (Vultr) has just implemented it and is giving away for free on its early stages...

proceed

yes.

yes

Yes! I would use this as it would help me store all my readily accessible files right within the same DC as my current server :)

We need something like this!

This would be amazing

Definitely yes!

yes!

Yes!

Or at least some extra storage for Droplets just like what S3 is doing

I literally just use S3 for this, which is pretty inconvenient. I don't want to have any AWS accounts for this project...

I really love the Digital Ocean services, interface and simple pricing model. But being limited to the storage provided by the droplets is a real showstopper for me. Not that there are that much competitors offering this, but if Digital Ocean would support S3/Swift compatible Object Storage, things would be much easier.

This is really important as the storage size is so less because of SSDs. I'd prefer it as addon like private networking.

I really need that to move all my clients to DO.

I like to have scalable options, like i need more ram then disk space for my dns, so 30 GB storage is wasted.

We need this. DigitalOcean servers need to be scalable.

Hope this happens soon.

when will this ever be implemented? It's been so long

Very need. For my application need a lot of space for uploads. I very much hope that you will do it!

An OpenStack Swift Deployment at DO datacenters would be superior.

Seven months... is DO actually gathering feedback or even listening?

This is one of few reasons why i moved away from DO. I had huge mongo and sql database that went out of space daily. This and some way to have a CDN or just normal S3 would be a huge reason to me to go back to DO. right now i am renting dedi server due to the diskspace.

(Or possibly a work around is new droplet types that are heavy disk [or cached ssd? or straight hdd?] oriented, low cpu oriented, for those that prefer disk to cpu)...

I would definitely use S3-storage if DO provided it. I would also use a block store if that was available.

Standards-compatible Object Storage (ie. S3, Openstack Swift) would be useful for back-end cold storage or warm storage that doesn't need SSD speed... Like backups.. Currently I use Amazon S3 for backups and hosting... Plus hosting static assets like CSS and JS off an object store is also really useful..

A block store is also important to me... A block store would be useful since it's fast enough to use as online storage for database files , etc. Definitely a block store would be great for use-cases where I want to put XFS formatted storage on a database server, or for provisioning dynamic instances that can access data on the block-store...

Overall I think an S3-like object store is most important to me personally... It's simpler, cheaper, and has a variety of use cases. . . Especially since DO only offers SSD storage , there's a need for something slower but with more space...

need this feature. I have to use NSF to hack this limition

A S3 like storage would be great. The costs of file transfer per GB should be competitive.

I agree with others that, although object storage is a thought (something is better than nothing), block storage is probably more flexible to the customer. Having a bit of flex on resizing the local drive wouldn't hurt either. To manage price, block storage need not be an SSD offering (although perhaps an alternative - different strokes). HDD is perfectly fine w/ me.

This would be awesome if DO offered something like this.

And the ability to attach said storage to droplets like you can with Rackspace.

the biggest feature that is yet missing!

Is digitalocean considering a partnership with a company that purely does cloud data storage? I was wondering if this extra storage can be faster provided through this partner.

I do prefer Block Storage as the highest priority, not object storage.

I would love the option to buy extra non-ssd storage space just for data saving.

It's important to distinguish between object storage (as per S3) and block storage you can mount on your droplet.

Both object storage *and* something like Amazon's Elastic Block Storage would be super-useful.

Please, Add more disks for us in DO and not Amazon S3. You can make a cheaper service :)

Tired of waiting for months. Moved files to s3.

Looking forward to get this feature.

@cody

If they will us Ceph for this, this will a great merge of both. List you important features of EBS. So DO can better focus our needs.

An S3-like storage option would be fantastic to keep things local to DO but is something like EBS on the road map?

Yes! An add-on with lots of s3 object storate would be great.

For those of you hat want raw disk storage, this is the thread you want to put your votes in: http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/3127077-extra-diskspace-

This is a key issue for our clients who has large disk space requirements but don't need the amount of CPU or RAM that your current options offer. For our own hardware deployments we've been using SWIFT as an S3 alternative and think that might be a good option for DO to offer but we're certainly open to anything that provides fast network available storage within our DO environment.

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

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.

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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.

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 ;)

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 )

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

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.

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)

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.