3

I have a Linux VPS that I would like to turn into a media server. Like most cheap VPS's, it has a fairly small storage capacity. What I would like to do is attach the box to an online backup system such as SpiderOak where the files would reside and be directly accessible to either a webserver or media server software.

Since the VPS hdd is small, I do not want the files to be synced to it. I would like a storage system that is online only. Ideally mountable like a network drive.

Is there a workaround to hook up with SpiderOak that does not require syncing?

4 Answers 4

2
+100

Box.com is similar to SpiderOak and/or Dropbox, and also allows mounting via WebDAV.

See their official support statement about WebDAV and FTP.

Or to go with a roll-your-own solution, you can always use Amazon S3 and s3fs.

0

Have you thought about setting up owncloud on that VPS? I used to to it with one, was able to stream files through the easily installable plugins too! You would have complete control over you files, and there wouldn't be scaned by other corporations like dropbox will do. There are Iphone and Andoid Apps! Give it a look: http://owncloud.org/

1
  • Thanks but I'm looking for storage I can pay for and mount, ideally. SpiderOak appeals because of their privacy policies, but I don't want a syncing service. I just need a paid network drive of largish capacity. My VPS(s) are too small.
    – Sam
    Oct 2, 2012 at 9:46
0

sshfs will work. It would require ssh access to another machine, though.

0

Very old post, but here is an answer from spideroak's website:

Neither FTP clients, WebDAV clients, nor web browsers are very well suited to doing cryptography as part of the upload/download process, so accessing your data this way would require the server to first decrypt your data, and then give it to your browser. This breaks our no knowledge model, where SpiderOak does not have your encryption keys, and SpiderOak servers are entirely unable to decrypt, read, or send any data.

While there have been recent developments in Javascript to handle intense cryptography in the browser as a part of a web based application, the libraries involved are not efficient, and more importantly, not vetted and security audited the way C libraries have been. At least for the time being, we think the best place for intense cryptography of the contents of one's filesystem is within a desktop application. As this changes, we'll be among the first involved.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .