Live data from Hacker News

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

chooseacloud.com

91–100 of 115 posts

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

#91
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

B2 is great as a backup store. I use it for backup. I wouldn't use it for non backup object storage, as it's in a single data center. S3 and Google Cloud are completely different, I'm not sure on the Google specifics but S3 has data replicated across three AZs.

GCS has multi-AZ replication, but also multi-region (at a premium).

S3 also does eventually consistent multi-region replication (at a premium).

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

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

B2 is great as a backup store. I use it for backup. I wouldn't use it for non backup object storage, as it's in a single data center. S3 and Google Cloud are completely different, I'm not sure on the Google specifics but S3 has data replicated across three AZs.

Isn't backing up the last place where you want zero redundancy?

I don't know about that. In my case I'm backing up a backup, so I have to lose both backups. B2 is just for the offsite copy of the backup. Like taking a tape home sometimes...

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

#93
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…

blob storage without associated compute resources is boring.

transfer costs and latency makes it unusable for anything interesting.

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

#94

Shameless Plug :) I wrote recently a series of articles comparing most of those providers and explaining how to use them with JavaScript: - Amazon S3: https://medium.com/@javidgon/amazon-s3-pros-cons-and-how-to-... - Google Cloud Storage: https://medium.com/@javidgon/google-cloud-storage-pros-cons-... - Microsoft Azure Blob Storage: https://medium.com/@javidgon/microsoft-azure-blob-storage-pr... - Backblaze B2: https…

shameless request :)

trying comparing performance: latency, bandwidth up/down and scalability in the face of many concurrent requests. And then do that wrt. compute resources in various locations.

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

#95

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

Thanks for pointing out and noticed the same.

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

#96
post #53

I work for a company that has to provision hosted products for customers across all the clouds and the one that has been impressing me the most lately is Azure. The load balancers are also the gateways (sound network topology), so there is no need for elastic IPs, NAT Gateways, or proxy protocol. The other thing I like about Azure is they have storage classes that automatically cross region replicate. The automatic s…

You will find the load balancing at Google to be superior to AWS and Azure. Had not used the others.

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

#97
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…

A little unfinished, but https://storagestatistics.com includes backblaze and others

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

#98

(*) for a particular use case. The example is 200GB storage with 2000GB data transfer (out) every month. That's a LOT of data going out every month, so I am guessing the scenario is if you are hosting a photo library and lots of people are downloading every month. If however you are just using the service as an online storage to hold Not knocking either service - I actually use both, for different use cases.

Without looking at the numbers in the article, I think the use case of storing data you never access is more of an edge-case? Sure a meager 10x down to up ratio (100gb up/month - distribute to 10 locations / people) will be very unfavourable to Amazon.

But what's the use-case for uploading 100 gb a month, and then... Not deleting it (keep paying for storage) and not accessing it?

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

#99
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…

A little unfinished, but https://storagestatistics.com includes backblaze and others

The "geographic resiliency" chart is pretty inaccurate for the major providers, especially folks like Google cloud that have multi regional offerings with 99.95% availability & a lot more than "1" for redundancy.

I'd also add - unless you are going to include a median/mean latency number many options will look absurdly good even though we know they're a horrible idea, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GmailFS. I also think "unknown" availability looks a lot like a durability issue..

Post reply on HN