Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

chooseacloud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 115 posts

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#71

Post by 3pt14159 »

truetraveller wrote: post #48
dsacco wrote: post #45

This is great, but I’m disappointed Backblaze B2 isn’t included. That seems like an oversight unless someone can point out how B2 doesn’t hold its own with these options in a glaring way. There are tradeoffs, but B2 seems to be very competitive overall. B2 is cheaper than every option here for both storage ($0.005/GB) and egress ($0.01/GB).[1] Their transaction pricing is also cheaper.[2] Despite being cheaper, it’s…

I really wanted to like B2. I love the docs and super-clean interface. But B2 was just too "weird" when it came to uploading an object. You can't replace an object key, so you always get a new object key when uploading. This is unlike any normal object store, where you can just upload to an existing key. Also, if you upload an object with the same name (e.g. myphoto.png) it creates a new version, and there's no way t…

I'm on DigitalOcean, and I love it, but I use B2 for backup because it just naturally seems safer to have the backups with a different company. It is great for that. I found the object upload a bit weird / different, but I appreciated how it stops you from shooting yourself in the foot by default, rather than the other way around.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#72

Post by manigandham »

sitepodmatt wrote: post #36
martinald wrote: post #23

The bandwidth egress charges on AWS (and GCP/Azure) are way too high. It almost seems cartel like. Bandwidth costs have dropped by a huge factor over the past few years; but none of this has been passed on. I really hope backblaze and/or DO manage to cause the big three some hurt on this and get them to reduce prices significantly; 7c/GB is really high these days.

What are bandwidth costs? This comes up again and again, people see HE.net / Cogent / Level3 / Hibernia / NTT whatever offering 10gig handoff IP transit at a colo neutral location for X per month and somehow determine the true cost. When I suspect the reality is that much of cost is invested in routing equipment both internally and externally, evolving SDN and all the goodness it affords, being able to offer SLA per…

Those other core networks and ISPs arent exactly cheap to run either, but they are doing fine and the price differential is close to 100x.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#74

Post by toomuchtodo »

moondev wrote: post #56
dsacco wrote: post #45

This is great, but I’m disappointed Backblaze B2 isn’t included. That seems like an oversight unless someone can point out how B2 doesn’t hold its own with these options in a glaring way. There are tradeoffs, but B2 seems to be very competitive overall. B2 is cheaper than every option here for both storage ($0.005/GB) and egress ($0.01/GB).[1] Their transaction pricing is also cheaper.[2] Despite being cheaper, it’s…

Backblaze is in only a single datacenter, so perhaps not quite fair to compare pricing between true multi-region competitors?

None of the other multi-region competitors provide multi-region durability "out of the box" (although S3 does offer cross region replication as an option), so you might consider distributing your data between two object stores if you need multi-region (AWS us-east-1 and Backblaze, for example). This ensure not only geographic redundancy, but also vendor redundancy (not to mention B2 is cheaper than S3).

Disclaimer: I am in risk management.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#75

Post by manigandham »

This is a rather simplistic comparison. These object storage services have several tiers and features that you need to take into account like zone vs regional replication, strong-consistency listings, bandwidth and access depending on where your compute is, integrations like notifications and functions, etc.

That being said, the clouds are great if your compute is co-located in the same place because the transfer fees are waived. Otherwise DO or B2 are probably better options for less usage or more neutral network locations and egress.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#76

Post by opportune »

turblety wrote: post #26

Sia [1] could be even cheaper, coming out at $1.10 for a TB [2]. Although this price might not be forever, and I'm still not sure about the reliability. In theory it should be more reliable, as it's decentralised and your data gets split among multiple servers around the world. The question remains what if the Sia network itself stops being profitable and people all exit at the same time. Although the same could be s…

I started getting excited about Sia over the summer. They've updated now, but they used to have an exceedingly ambitious project roadmap here: https://trello.com/b/Io1dDyuI/sia-feature-roadmap. Checking back a few months later made me lose confidence in the project, even though I think it's a really cool idea.

I see it being used as a base layer for a Glacier type of product, which is still useful because it might give everyone a cheap-ish way to store media, but I wish it could be something more. As far as I know, there's no way to coordinate the sharing geographically, and furthermore the bandwidth is pretty bad, which I think might be due to bandwidth not being counted in the pricing models? There would be huge money in creating a blockchain like Sia that created a more granular marketplace for distributing shards and that factored geography/bandwidth into the pricing. The killer app for this technology is a public market for servers (specifically media hosting). Imagine if Netflix could continually shift their distribution platforms around the world as offices emptied and people turned off their PCs

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#77

Post by milesward »

zbjornson wrote: post #73

This uses the pricing for multi-regional GCS, which is geo-redundant across two or more locations separated by at least 100 miles. Regional GCS is the storage class equivalent to standard S3 and is $0.02/GB.

Yup, I saw the same thing.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#78

Post by arghwhat »

truetraveller wrote: post #48
dsacco wrote: post #45

This is great, but I’m disappointed Backblaze B2 isn’t included. That seems like an oversight unless someone can point out how B2 doesn’t hold its own with these options in a glaring way. There are tradeoffs, but B2 seems to be very competitive overall. B2 is cheaper than every option here for both storage ($0.005/GB) and egress ($0.01/GB).[1] Their transaction pricing is also cheaper.[2] Despite being cheaper, it’s…

I really wanted to like B2. I love the docs and super-clean interface. But B2 was just too "weird" when it came to uploading an object. You can't replace an object key, so you always get a new object key when uploading. This is unlike any normal object store, where you can just upload to an existing key. Also, if you upload an object with the same name (e.g. myphoto.png) it creates a new version, and there's no way t…

If you upload an object with the same 'name' to S3, you also get a new version.

When you say 'key', do you mean the opaque object ID granted to objects in B2 which object stores like S3 doesn't have at all? I don't understand the rant here. S3 only operate by 'name' (key).

I have had no problem integrating B2 side-by-side with S3 and GCP in the products I have written. Their high-level models are largely compatible.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#80

Post by arghwhat »

milesward wrote: post #68

Cool site, but noticing an error: This compares AWS S3 single region pricing ($0.024/gb) to GCP GCS multi-region pricing ($0.026/gb) rather than GCP GCS single region pricing ($0.020/gb). Hopefully the creator/author will correct the discrepancy... Disclosure: I'm a pricing dweeb at Google Cloud

I sincerely hope your business card says "Pricing Dweep, Google Cloud Products".

If not, you need to get this fixed.

Post reply on HN