Best Backup Technology + Small UI Wish for Separating Technologies vs. Providers

[timka]

Is there a technology you prefer for network-based deployments (where no physical/direct access to the server is possible)? For example, would you recommend SSHFS, S3-compatible storage, or something else for remote backup scenarios?
I would appreciate some personal opinions

Also, @girish regarding the backup setup: it might improve usability if the storage provider list were divided into technologies (self-hostable/generic protocols) and providers (cloud services). Perhaps a simple separator like --- could visually split the dropdown:

CIFS Mount
External/Local Disk (EXT4 or XFS)
EXT4 Disk
Filesystem
Filesystem (Mountpoint)
Minio
NFS Mount
S3 API Compatible (v4)
SSHFS Mount
XFS Disk
---
Amazon S3
Backblaze B2 (S3 API)
Cloudflare R2
Contabo Object Storage
DigitalOcean Spaces
Exoscale SOS
Google Cloud Storage
Hetzner Object Storage
IDrive e2
IONOS (Profitbricks)
Linode Object Storage
OVH Object Storage
Scaleway Object Storage
UpCloud Object Storage
Vultr Object Storage
Wasabi

[joseph]

AFAIK all of them work equally well. Maybe the only limitation is that NFS is best suited only for internal networks, because it doesn't have encryption (?).

[scooke]

Dividing into technologies and providers, I think, would continue to be confusing as it suggests that the providers DO NOT offer those technologies. Cloudron gets a lot of ppl new to self-hosting using it, which is a good thing, and the fewer the questions and confusions the better. The list, currently alphabetical, works perfectly fine.

[timka]

@joseph OK. But I have one question regarding S3: is 'Amazon S3' a preconfigured S3 API Compatible (v4) variant? Maybe you could add a note to the documentation. What is the difference between "Minio" and "S3 API Compatible V4", or are they the same?

[joseph]

@timka S3 is a pseudo-standard. Tthere is no spec for s3. AWS made a service and then lots of other services made compatible services by reverse engineering. Because of this, there are subtle differences in various implementations. The provider type is just a way for the code to add some provider specific hacks in the code. With that in mind "S3 API Compatible V4" just gets your the generic s3 protocol without any hacks I think it's complicated to document what the hacks are but it's all inside https://git.cloudron.io/platform/box/-/blob/master/src/storage/s3.js?ref_type=heads