121–130 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there is always https://aws.amazon.com/snowmobile/
Keeping track of all the different offerings AWS has is a full time job.
I've been a developer for 10 years and AWS seems to me like its intentionally designed to be as messy as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is to make it easy to move data in and hard to move it out.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on how much saturation you can get. Most end users/companies can’t saturate this reliably, or have much spoiler traffic. Only the biggest players can minimise their seasonality enough to get close to this, and doing that is a service that it’s probably worth paying for.
Who cares if you can saturate it? Breakeven is 18 terabytes/month, or 0.6% utilization on that line. You could do this even just pegging the line 9 minutes per day and otherwise leaving it unused. ;)
People forget just how affordable it can be to maintain your own infrastructure. You can have the hardware and network capable of supporting 10X your average traffic loads and still have it operate far more cost effectively than the equivalent traffic on AWS.
At my work, we slashed our overall hosting costs by moving a data warehouse off of AWS and on to our own self-maintained infrastructure.
But with a bloated inefficient IT department or non-savvy negotiations with hardware vendors or transit providers, it can also be more expensive than AWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would still require egress.
How about just sending Freedom Of Information Act request to the NSA asking them for a copy of your data. I think this is a joke...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of places that have 1gbps bare metal unmetered boxes for ~$200/mo, too. At 10% utilization that's about $0.005/gig.
any in the US?
$20/mo for 100TB metered ($0.0002/gigabyte). $120/mo for 200TB metered ($0.0006/gigabyte). $170/mo for 1gbps unmetered ($0.00085/gigabyte at 200TB, $0.00052/gigabyte at full saturation one way).
or https://client.layeronline.com/cart.php?a=confproduct&i=0
$199/mo 1 gbps unmetered.
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.