WebDAV has been around a lot longer and does many of the same things as object storage. It also has support for random access read/writes where object storage requires you to download, edit, and re-upload the whole file. Seems like a no-brainer if you wanted to offer cloud storage to customers.

I thought maybe supporting large uploads was the draw, but WebDAV can support chunking, so you don’t need to allocate extra server resources to accommodate large files.

I use both daily, and WebDAV just seems like it does everything better: object storage feels like throwing files in a junk drawer and WebDAV more like an organized filing cabinet.

Aside from Nextcloud and a few FOSS applications, the only big thing I recall that adopted WebDAV was Frontpage back in the day.

So, what am I missing? What makes object storage so compelling that it became ubiquitous while WebDAV is practically a legacy spec?

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOPEnglish
    3·
    9 months ago

    Thanks for the detailed reply. That pretty much answers it.

    I definitely agree on the different purposes, but sadly that doesn’t help where object storage is used where it really doesn’t make sense (my org replaced their fileserver with object storage and a client sync app - grr).

    WebDAV itself does not support random writes. That’s a separate RFC that’s not part of WebDAV, but is perfectly compatible, and many WebDAV servers offer that functionality

    Ah, true. I was looking at SabreDAV specifically which does support it and made a leap that it was part of the spec.

    Also, I am definitely going to check out your Nephele Serve project. Thanks for mentioning that.