151–160 of 252 posts
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…
I recently started running more Google Cloud VMs in the UK instead of the US. It was costing me £2 a day to run the VMs, but somehow I also paid £12 a day for "GCP Storage egress between NA and EU”. Turns out that by default Google's Docker container registry only stores the Docker images in the US. So each time I launched a VM the Docker image was downloaded from the US. I wrote more about it here: https://www.mattz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company was getting massive bills on AWS S3 egress. It was one of the reasons we moved to Wasabi for bucket storage; we then had to deal with a huge one time hit for egress, but in the long run the short term cost was worth it.
Do you think Wasabi is sustainable? I looked at them but find it hard to believe they can sustain free unlimited egress forever.
This seems more sustainable than Wasabi's model, but there's no way of knowing for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of them (AWS, GCP, Azure) are priced outrageously compared to high quality, well peered, bandwidth.
GCP is pretty good though. Cold-potato, very fat backbone, and very good presence at a ton of PoPs. When using GCP you basically have the same global, high-bandwidth direct connectivity presence that Google uses for its products, and that is very difficult to match by traditional T1 ISPs.
For example, a cold potato network may have a link from Dallas to Chicago to New York, while a hot potato network could have a direct link from Dallas to New York.
Cogent uses cold potato and is frequently worse than other transit providers.
Wow, does it really cost 4-5x more to download a 1 GB file from S3 or Google Cloud Storage than it does to store it for a month? That is mind-blowing.
Bandwidth is expensive, storage is cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because this is what the market agrees to bear. I think it's more than that because a lot of folks aren't aware of the costs until they need to or want to move and then they get hit with a massive bill. So maybe they chalk it up to experience and pay the bill because they have no other choice or calculated it's still better in the long term. To me that's a much difference scenario than walking into a store and happ…
That's still the market. The market isn't exclusively good, and has many failure modes. This is one of them.
Sure, it’s the market. Why? Is it a Giffen good? Is it a case of very poor visibility of services to consumers? ...? There is something interesting going on, let’s figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AWS is combining all your networking charges into one lump "outgoing data transfer" fee > 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 charg…
How many of these VPS providers are actually managing global highly availabile network infrastructure?
But I think level3 is associated with:
https://www.centurylink.com/business/hybrid-it-cloud/public-...
And while they have a call-us price list (if you have to ask...) - they at least state:
"Public and Private high-capacity networking options up to 10Gbps. Note: there is no charge for internal data center traffic. Cost on a per-GB-out model"
I have no idea what they charge pr gb for this cloud product however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GCP is pretty good though. Cold-potato, very fat backbone, and very good presence at a ton of PoPs. When using GCP you basically have the same global, high-bandwidth direct connectivity presence that Google uses for its products, and that is very difficult to match by traditional T1 ISPs.
Cold potato is not necessarily better, actually its often times worse than hot potato and usually used to lower costs so you don't have to pay other people for transit. For example, a cold potato network may have a link from Dallas to Chicago to New York, while a hot potato network could have a direct link from Dallas to New York. Cogent uses cold potato and is frequently worse than other transit providers.
(Also, they offer the option to use hot potato and pay them less: https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/docs/overview )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this has more to do with collusion than consumer behavior. On average consumers are very rational, even if their rationality is hard to explain. The issue with per-bit pricing is that a fair agreement for network use would probably look like paying a fee that makes up for the amortization of the network equipment. Anything else is an artificially restricted market created in an attempt to extract more value o…
Why do you think that bandwidth costs should only cover the hardware? What about the electricity, rent, payroll, sales, marketing, administrative staff, insurance, accountants, lawyers, etc.
I have recently talked with a friend about a very cheap way to egress from AWS, at $2.5 per TB with the AWS lightsail $5 instance which include 2TB of egress per instance. This friend have extracted 200TB of backups for $500 instead of $17,000!