Bare metal hosting with bandwidth priced by pipe size rather than gigabyte. Check out DataPacket, FDCServers, Reliablesite, Hivelocity, etc.
Cloud bandwidth is absolutely enormously overpriced.
Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
161–170 of 199 posts
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that enterprise HDD going to be slower for a cloud instance though?
SSDs are definitely not "cost-effective" for 10 TB if that's what you're suggesting.
I mean to say, for general self-hosting services and apps, HDDs seem to have that performance problem and latency, which could lead to a negative experience?
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think rsync.net is much cheaper. They frequently run offers, I think I pay $40/yr for 2 TB or something.
2TB is currently $324/yr if paid yearly at rsync.net. I would love to use them as they hang out here, but their prices are way too expensive for my needs.
I use Wasabi at $4.99 per month for 1TB and backup using borg and rclone. I serve only a few files, so I don't know the egress limitations.
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#164Smaller VPS providers are a good value for this. I'm currently using ServaRICA for a 2TB box, $7/mo. I use it for some hosting, but mostly for incremental ZFS backups. Storage speed isn't amazing, but it suits my use case.
I'm using cloudflare R2 for a couple hundred GB, where I needed something faster.
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's if you use their CDN. Cloudflare R2 doesn't charge for egress bandwidth. If you have 100TB/mo to serve, try it and see what happens. I haven't heard of anyone being kicked off of R2 for using too much egress bandwidth yet. At scale, you'll pay a couple thousand dollars for Class B operations on R2, and another bunch for storing the 10 TB in the first place, but that's relatively cheap compared to other offerin…
CF is not particularly fond of non-Enterprise customers serving more than a few TB/mo. Source: $corp serves 150 TB/mo via CF and pays somewhere north of 50k+/yr for it
We’re doing 60/mo on their $20 plan so far and it’s not been a problem.
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#166Consider storing the data on Backblaze B2 ($0.005/GB/month) and serving content via Cloudflare (egress from B2 to Cloudflare is free through their Bandwidth Alliance).
(No affiliation with either; just a happy customer for a tiny personal project)
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow! It's the first time I'm hearing of this Hetzner offering. It's ideal for my offsite backup needs. Thanks!
I think rsync.net is much cheaper. They frequently run offers, I think I pay $40/yr for 2 TB or something.
I back up to both rsync and Hetzner. Both have reasonable costs and rsync has given me good long term discounts too without even asking.
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#168I always assumed having a raspberry pi with a couple HDs in raid1 with IPFS or torrent would be the best way to do this. Giving another one of these raid1 rpis to a friend could make it reasonably available. I am very interested to know if there are good tools around this though, such as a good way to serve a filesystem (nfs-like for example) via torrent/ipfs and if the directories could be password protected in diff…
If you just want to be able to sync a directory between multiple devices with encryption options I'd recommend Syncthing. It's dead easy to set up, I've currently got it on a rpi backing up all my photos from my phone while syncing my Obsidian vault beteen my phone and desktop.
Yeah that's a good suggestion for that use case. I was thinking a bit more along the lines of 2 other use cases:
1) If you have a file locally and want to send a link to friend/family member (yourself or even some random person on the internet) for a 1TB or 1MB file to download, but for it to be optionally password protected to download.
2) You want to set up a package/script to automatically download a file when started (NN weights for example) and for the download to retrieve like IPFS torrent from everyone who has that file (I.e. is running the package).
The system in (2) works ok for downloading a Dockerfile that points to an IPFS file if you put the link there; however, a considerable number of things don't fit the suggestions in (2), such as not automatically becoming a seeder of that file when downloaded or when running the package. There is also a great amount of opportunity in making the process of uploading files to IPFS much simpler. One example for the code idea would be something like git hooks, such that any time a major version of a git commit was made, a set of files would be added to IPFS for this type of distribution. Ultimately a 'plug-n-play' package to add in a specified way e.g. setup.py would be the best way to get something like that going. Then perhaps a simple program like synching or miniserve that operates on top of that functionality would allow for something more like (1).
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage Boxes are even cheaper, 20 EUR (or less if you’re outside Europe) for 10TB + unlimited bandwidth.
1gbit is 300T a month, 10g is 3000T a month. There’s always a limit, that might be measured in TB, PB or EB, and may be what you determine practical or not, but it’s there
I think it’s more about peace of mind, unlimited really means I won’t wake up tomorrow with a $10k bill, as it happened many times (not to me) on AWS and the like. That is the disgusting practice the big cloud providers like to impose, for no apparent reason but to keep you in their roach motel and pay up. Disgusting!
Re: Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage Boxes are even cheaper, 20 EUR (or less if you’re outside Europe) for 10TB + unlimited bandwidth.
If we are talking about serving files publicly I'd go with the €40 server for flexibility (the storage boxes are kind of limited), but still get a €20 Storage Box to have a backup of the data. Then add more servers as bandwidth and redundancy requires. But if splitting your traffic across multiple servers is possible you can also get the €20 storage box and put a couple Hetzner Cloud servers with a caching reverse pr…
Exactly, and also you get to actually understand how it all works together, unlike a bunch of proprietary APIs that only tie you to their particular platform.
(for those not on the same page, I’m talking from a position of substantial experience with all 3 major clouds)
Plus, these days the maintenance burden of the OS layer is really heavily overstated. With certain self-updating open-source container OSes one doesn’t even really have to think about patches and all that ancient crap.
The real appeal of the big players in my mind is only in one use case - scale. If you need 10k servers for heavy “big” data processing like in genomics or ‘AI’ (whatever that means), only then they start to be indisposable. Otherwise, the considerable burden of training all personnel on proprietary APIs is just not worth it - it literally costs less to buy and configure your own system (or a traditional VPS or dedicated server). Cloud architects ain’t cheap!