91–100 of 252 posts
"The charges don’t appear to be a case of cloud providers gouging their customers" I disagree on this one. The margins on egress are, well...egregious.
If I'm not mistaken AWS has the highest egress rates of the major cloud providers.
I've actually been working on a library to help mitigate cloud storage lock-in. The idea is to treat cloud storage providers like disks are treated in RAID. For example, you have 3 separate cloud providers. Cloud providers 1 and 2 have every other byte of data striped across them. Cloud provider 3 has parity data. To pull a file you can only need 2 of the 3 cloud providers. If you don't like how a cloud storage provi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should set up a big fat pipe right outside of Amazon data centers with free unlimited transfers, get data on behalf of customers copied to hard drives from AWS, and then attach those hard drives to the Uber pipe. I bet that service could work for a short & glorious moment in time.
That would still require egress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should set up a big fat pipe right outside of Amazon data centers with free unlimited transfers, get data on behalf of customers copied to hard drives from AWS, and then attach those hard drives to the Uber pipe. I bet that service could work for a short & glorious moment in time.
Amazon beat you to it: https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/
I've actually been working on a library to help mitigate cloud storage lock-in. The idea is to treat cloud storage providers like disks are treated in RAID. For example, you have 3 separate cloud providers. Cloud providers 1 and 2 have every other byte of data striped across them. Cloud provider 3 has parity data. To pull a file you can only need 2 of the 3 cloud providers. If you don't like how a cloud storage provi…
Sounds exactly what is Tahoe-LAFS for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would still require egress.
I was going to say it’d be an improvement but I can’t actually make sense of the AWS Snowball proving https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/pricing/
A flat fee for the act of a human getting the data onto the physical medium ($200) + the cost of shipping (So if your getting out 30 TB of data that's $200 + ~$100 + ($0.03 * 30000) = ~$1200
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm not mistaken AWS has the highest egress rates of the major cloud providers.
All of them (AWS, GCP, Azure) are priced outrageously compared to high quality, well peered, bandwidth.
What's up with Apple's spend? Did they move most of their data out of AWS?
I've worked at at least one company where we found using Direct Connect to a data center somewhere and egressing via that data center instead of amazon saved us significant bandwidth costs.
amazon still charges for traffic through direct connect(50%), dont they?
Is there a plausible explanation why egress fees from cloud providers costs around $0.1/GB? "Traditional" server providers such as Hetzner are able to offer bandwidth at orders of magnitude lower price (eg. $1.1/TB). I understand that cloud providers may have better interconnects or better uptimes, but that doesn't justify the magnitudes higher pricing.
Disclaimer: I worked on an AWS service team. This is, oddly enough, similar to a debate people have about consumers TV or Internet: should pricing be "unlimited" or "a la carte"? AWS is combining all your networking charges into one lump "outgoing data transfer" fee. So it's heavily marked up in comparison to what they're paying for the outgoing data transfer, and you're not sure how much is profit vs. whether it's g…
> So it might be fairer if AWS broke out separate line items for internal, incoming and outgoing data transfer
This explanation doesn't cut it for me - most (all?) "traditional" VPS providers don't charge for ingress traffic, and I doubt anyone, ever, has charged for internal traffic.
So what exactly is 'all the networking charges' comprised of, other than egress data?