Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 199 posts

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#121

Post by KomoD »

harrymit907 wrote: post #38
walthamstow wrote: post #20

I would also like to ask everyone about suggestions for deep storage of personal data, media etc. 10TB with no need for access unless in case of emergency data loss. I'm currently using S3 intelligent tiering.

Wasabi is the best option for you. 10TB would be around 60$/month and they offer free egress as much as your storage. So you can download upto 10TB per month.

$60/mo for NA and EU, otherwise $70/mo

Also read their free egress policy first: https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/#free-egress-policy

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#123

Post by KomoD »

aborsy wrote: post #86
capableweb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10TB storage + 100TB bandwidth and S3 will easily be +1000 USD per month, while there are solutions out there that are fast and secure with unrestricted bandwidth for less than 100 USD per month. Magnitude cheaper with same grade in "enterprisey".

Well, I said, if you store small data. For large data, sure, prohibitively expensive! I don’t think many other solutions are equally fast and secure. AWS operation is pretty transparent, documented, audited and used by governments. You can lock it down heavily with IAM and a CMK KMS key, and audit the repository. The physical security is also pretty tight, and there is location redundancy. Even hetzner doesn’t have p…

OPs post is literally about 10TB storage and 100+TB/mo

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#124

Post by GOATS- »

psychphysic wrote: post #56

I'd suggest looking into "seedboxes" which are intended for torrenting. I suspect the storage will be a bigger concern. Seedhost.eu has dedicated boxes with 8TB storage and 100TB bandwidth for €30/month. Perhaps you could have that and a lower spec one to make up the space. Prices are negotiable so you can always see if they can meet your needs for cheaper than two separate boxes.

Yep, resellers of dedicated machines rent servers in bulk so you can often get boxes for way cheaper than you would directly from the host. Take a look at https://hostingby.design as an example.

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#125

Post by sireat »

johnklos wrote: post #54

If price is a consideration, you might consider two 10 TB hard drives on machines on two home gbps Internet connections. It's highly unlikely that both would go down at the same time, unless they were in the same area, on the same ISP.

How do you set up load balancing for those two connections?

That is yourdomain.com -> IP_ISP1, IP_ISP2

Going the other way from yourserver -> outside would indicate some sort of bonding setup.

It is not trivial for a home lab.

I use 3 ISPs at home and just keep each network separate (different hardware on each) even though in theory the redundancy would be nice.

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#126

Post by qeternity »

winrid wrote: post #94
qeternity wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could do this for about $1k/mo with Linode and Wasabi. This is still crazy expensive. Cloud providers have really warped people’s expectations.

Well, for us it's actually really cheap because we really just want the compute. The bandwidth is just a bonus. Actually, since the Akami acquisition it would be even cheaper. $800/mo to serve 100TB with fairly high bandwidth and low latency from cold storage is a good deal IMO. I know companies paying millions a year to serve less than a third of that through AWS when you include compute, DB, and storage.

Fine, but now you’re changing the comparison. Spending millions on compute with low bandwidth requirements doesn’t make it stupid. It probably still is, but that’s a different conversation.

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#127

Post by coverband »

KomoD wrote: post #116
wongarsu wrote: post #17

Depends on what exactly you want to do with it. Hetzner has very cheap Storage boxes (10TB for $20/month with unlimited traffic) but those are closer to FTP boxes with a 10 connection limit. They are also down semi-regularly for maintenance. For rock-solid public hosting Cloudflare is probably a much better bet, but you're also paying 7 times the price. More than a dedicated server to host the files, but you get more…

> Hetzner has very cheap Storage boxes (10TB for $20/month with unlimited traffic) * based on fair use at 250 TB/mo: > In order to continue hosting your servers with us, the traffic use will need to be drastically reduced. Please check your servers and confirm what is using so much traffic, making sure it is nothing abusive, and then find ways of reducing it.

Thanks. It’s important to be very much aware of this when being enticed by the promise of unlimited bandwidth.

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#129

Post by indigodaddy »

j45 wrote: post #120
indigodaddy wrote: post #91

BuyVM has been around a long time and have a good reputation. I’ve used them on and off for quite a while. They have very reasonably priced KVM instances with unmetered 1G (10G for long-standing customers) bandwidth that you can attach “storage slabs” up to 10TB ($5 per TB/mo). Doubt you will find better value than this for block storage. https://buyvm.net/block-storage-slabs/

Nice. How have you found their uptime and reliability?

Honestly haven’t hosted anything important enough for me to track that. There is an unofficial site that tracks their uptime apparently: https://www.buyvmstatus.com/

Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

#130

Post by winrid »

qeternity wrote: post #126
winrid wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for us it's actually really cheap because we really just want the compute. The bandwidth is just a bonus. Actually, since the Akami acquisition it would be even cheaper. $800/mo to serve 100TB with fairly high bandwidth and low latency from cold storage is a good deal IMO. I know companies paying millions a year to serve less than a third of that through AWS when you include compute, DB, and storage.

Fine, but now you’re changing the comparison. Spending millions on compute with low bandwidth requirements doesn’t make it stupid. It probably still is, but that’s a different conversation.

lol no, it sure is. But OP didn't give a price range or durability requirements...
Post reply on HN