Neat job, keep up the great work! There is also OVH as competitor. Their panel and documentation is not the best but once you integrate, it works like a charm and I guess they are the cheapest object storage service out there in the market: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/
Wasabi – Simple storage solution
131–140 of 164 posts
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#132If 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?
All you would need is to add a Django storage backend to talk to it.
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#133The biggest reason why I use S3 is not price or performance. Competing with them on price or performance is not going to work.
I use S3 because of convenience. Build something more convenient, I'll switch.
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those durability numbers for both Amazon and Wasabi are pure marketing and don't really mean anything even remotely important. Durability of data stored by a single company, even a company like Amazon, is actually very low, you should be scared of how low it really is. You could get kicked out from the service, lose data because of a bug or an operational mistake, be prevented from using the service by your governmen…
Do you have any evidence for these claims of low durability? (None of those issues, except for bugs in the service, would count against them, by the way.)
I think factors beyond the storage algorithm are pretty important to consider when thinking about storing data that's important to your business. To your specific point though:
1. Amazon claims 99.999999999% durability of objects over a year.
2. I store 1EB of data with an object size of 4MB for a year (so 250,000,000,000 objects).
3. I can expect to lose 250 objects in a year, or 1GB.
Now to my experience:
I have stored in excess of that amount of data in S3. I have lost considerably more data -- solely because of data losses internal to S3 -- that these numbers would suggest. It was a tolerable amount of data loss, I didn't curse Amazon's name or swear vengeance, but it was definitely not 1 gig.
The standard S3 SLA provides credits only based on uptime. There is no mention of durability whatsoever. That tells you that Amazon is not willing to put their money where there mouth is on their 99.999999999% durability claims. The reality is the number is a design target, not an operational guarantee.
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you see the $40 min with OVH?
Experience. If you dig into the billing information and/or actually attempt to create a cloud project it'll tell you there is $40/year minimum. On OVH you create an "OpenStack/Cloud" project -> They charge you $40 -> Then you have use of the cloud storage.
It was 10€ in prepaid credit for me just yesterday, Which is valid for 13 months IIRC
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#136Some 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…
> - Their durability claims are highly suspect. I would want to see a white paper breaking this down.
Is there such a white paper for AWS/Azure/GCP? Or are they running on reputation alone?
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence for these claims of low durability? (None of those issues, except for bugs in the service, would count against them, by the way.)
I think factors beyond the storage algorithm are pretty important to consider when thinking about storing data that's important to your business. To your specific point though: 1. Amazon claims 99.999999999% durability of objects over a year. 2. I store 1EB of data with an object size of 4MB for a year (so 250,000,000,000 objects). 3. I can expect to lose 250 objects in a year, or 1GB. Now to my experience: I have st…
AFAIK, S3 only provides notification when reduced redundancy objects are lost, not regular objects. How did you detect your data loss?
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#138Some 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…
I've found that most people / companies actually do use S3 alone. Adoption of S3 on it's own is far greater than the rest of their services, at least in my experience.
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudflare?
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion on HN, but I had the misfortune of using CloueFlare when they first started and experienced firsthand how amateurish the team behind it was. I tried them again three years ago and didn't see anything to change my opinion. The security incident last year cemented it for me. Thanks for your suggestion (honestly) but we won't ever be using CloudFlare so long as I have a sa…
They've definitely improved since then. You need to be on the $200/month plan and basically turn off the WAF (which is craptastic), then things are pretty good.
All software has bugs. They just got unlucky, though their handling of the situation did raise a bunch of red flags.
Re: Wasabi – Simple storage solution
#140Does 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.
I know this doesn't add value but if you think CloudFront is expensive you should see how much CDNs used to cost before CloudFront came around. The fact it doesn't change you for the bandwidth between S3 and CloudFront is key too. 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 chea…
CloudFront is one of the slowest CDNs out there.
CloudFlare is okay as long as you pay $200/month. That's nothing in the CDN world. Amazon wants $600/month just to deploy a SSL cert on CloudFront.