91–100 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.
Disclosure: they run on my day-job's systems.
Am I doing the math wrong or is this $4/mo for me to dump 1TB of copies of my family albums and whatnot into for long term cold storage?
Storage is cheap on any cloud, the network egress is expensive. 1. Wasabi: Storage: $.0039/GB/Month Egress: $.04/GB 2. AWS: Storage: $0.023/GB/Month Egress: $.05-.09/GB (even lower if you're big) Sending data one outside of AWS costs equivalent of 2-4 months of storage.
The benefit of S3 is that traffic is free within the same region. If you're hosting on AWS that alone is going to save you money versus the competitors.
Regularly pushing lots of small files on S3 can get expensive. $1/200k files ($0.005 per 1k PUT requests).
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…
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.)
We just added B2 support to Arq Backup. It's been working great for us so far.
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…
Are you suggesting that Wasabi might go away because, maybe, this is not the "traditional" valley model?
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 did some research myself to decide which storage solution to use for backups and B2 is the cheapest of all, at least for backups. I hope that Backblaze will also offer some kind of redundance option (replicate customer data in 2+ datacenters).
Wouldn't it be funny if this was just a market test/exercise, using actual S3 as a backend, just to see if it gets any traction before building own HW/SW solution?
Such a startup would require a lot of tech infrastructure and know-how, and their page http://www.wasabisys.com isn't even configured.
It feels like Wasabi is startup with no physical product, but I might be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It would be a great destination for cloud backup, where one of the concerns is loss of all your backed up data due to malicious action - look at the trouble the hackers had to go to in Mr Robot to take out their offsite tape backups. I'd be more concerned though with the durability of the company rather than their disk systems over the long term though.