31–40 of 164 posts
Worth noting the opportunity cost of not being in S3. Something like Athena won't be yours for the asking. It's been saving my butt lately. Nice to be able to actually see what's in your S3 sometimes :) http://blog.ratelim.it/blog/log-aggregation-at-scale-for-che...
Does anyone have a suggestion for a cheaper CloudFront, not S3? Preferably an option that can do S3 upstream, and support for signed requests with expiry is a must.
Try pricing it against Google https://cloud.google.com/cdn/pricing and Level3 http://www.level3.com/en/products/content-delivery-network/
As someone mentioned, CloudFlare initial seems cheaper but you give up some stuff like control of your DNS and they can shut you off or start showing CAPTCHAs at any time unless you pay for their higher plans. Which might be worth it, you have to weight the pros and cons.
On the same page on HN there's another Wasabi that's a fire alarm for deaf people.
- Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims.
- They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET and DELETE did work but that is only 3 of 100’s of API’s.
- Their durability claims are highly suspect. I would want to see a white paper breaking this down.
- Their first round was debt financing.
Why this business model does’t work...
Most people don’t use S3 alone. S3 is a source for other AWS services. That being said, Wasabi becomes a more expensive option as you have a 4 cent egress fee to access data from the rest of your AWS infrastructure. The only place Wasabi becomes cheaper is for those using S3 direct/alone which is a very small subset of S3 usage. AWS is very open about this in white papers, conferences, tech talks, etc.
Wasabi is an economy at scale play that cast way too far a net. There is opportunity in specific vertical markets to sell a solution (object paired with compute) but a pure S3 endpoint will never take substantial marketshare away from AWS.
There's also B2 ( https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html ), which is I think the cheapest of them all. UPDATE: Well, egress is cheaper. B2 is $0.005/GB storage with $0.02/GB egress. But one thing to consider is that B2 storage is located within one single datacenter. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated, but am in the process of deciding to use B2.)
I often wonder how this works. With the whole Sun lawsuit with Google over the Java API making a clone of another platforms API sounds dangerous.
I'm curious what HN thinks.
I've wanted to have a "compatibility layer" that mimics my competitors APIs but have been scared of the possible repercussions.
There's also B2 ( https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html ), which is I think the cheapest of them all. UPDATE: Well, egress is cheaper. B2 is $0.005/GB storage with $0.02/GB egress. But one thing to consider is that B2 storage is located within one single datacenter. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated, but am in the process of deciding to use B2.)
There's also B2 ( https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html ), which is I think the cheapest of them all. UPDATE: Well, egress is cheaper. B2 is $0.005/GB storage with $0.02/GB egress. But one thing to consider is that B2 storage is located within one single datacenter. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated, but am in the process of deciding to use B2.)
B2 is horribly unstable, has limits left and right and most of all, the latency is horrendous. You will be better off using any standard OpenStack provider. That way you won't have a lock in, and great performance (in my testing). E.g. OpenStack Swift on OVH. Sure it's a tiny bit more expensive. But you get a mature cross-provider API and better performance. Even for huge chunks of cold data, I wouldn't want to use B…
That it works so well for me might be connected to the fact that their own products are backup solutions. In any case, I am now paying a significantly less monthly fee for B2 than on Amazon S3 before and the setup had a much lower complexity.
Some quick observations: - Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims. - They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET…
But S3 originally launched by itself, before EC2.
If Wasabi adds a Lambda-like serverless compute layer that could be powerful.
Some quick observations: - Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims. - They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET…