51–60 of 164 posts
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.
Check out KeyCDN.
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…
Yes, it's hard to find use cases where Wasabi storage could compete without compute. But S3 originally launched by itself, before EC2. If Wasabi adds a Lambda-like serverless compute layer that could be powerful.
> Wasabi storage costs a flat $.0039/GB/Month with a 1 TB minimum usage. so the only "catch" is $3.90 a month minimum?
I wonder how this compares to rsync.net, especially with their HN discount and http://rsync.net/products/attic.html if you're doing the kind of backups I'd imagine Glacier is used for.
After reading about https://rsync.net for years on this site, I signed up last week. Great service, and almost pain-free. I've only bought 100Gb but that's enough for my virtual machines. (Completely replaced the use of https://rsync.io ;)
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…
Yes, it's hard to find use cases where Wasabi storage could compete without compute. But S3 originally launched by itself, before EC2. If Wasabi adds a Lambda-like serverless compute layer that could be powerful.
If the goal is price reduction: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ (S3-comparable performance) $40/year minimum Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0112/month/GB https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/cloud-archive/ (archival storage) Incoming/Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0023/month/GB https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing Storage: €0.005/Month No traffic costs (because it…
Where did you see the $40 min with OVH?
On OVH you create an "OpenStack/Cloud" project -> They charge you $40 -> Then you have use of the cloud storage.
If the goal is price reduction: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ (S3-comparable performance) $40/year minimum Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0112/month/GB https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/cloud-archive/ (archival storage) Incoming/Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0023/month/GB https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing Storage: €0.005/Month No traffic costs (because it…
does this work with django storages?
https://github.com/openstack/python-openstacksdk
You'd need to use that to build it out.
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.
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…