51–60 of 96 posts
For another comparison, voxel.net (which serves imgur): http://www.voxel.net/pricing $0.10/GB up to 40TB $0.07/GB up to 500TB $0.05/GB >500TB This looks like the cheapest "real" CDN I've seen. Awesome :) Not that I need it [yet], but here's to hoping :)
These prices apply to inbound and outbound traffic, Amazon made their inbound traffic free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These prices apply to inbound and outbound traffic, Amazon made their inbound traffic free.
Isn't the vast majority of traffic outbound?
EMR jobs can also have much more inbound traffic than outbound.
Amazon is now the #1 choice for web scrapers everywhere :)
I thought most AWS IP addresses were blocked by most admins. Does any one have experience scraping using Amazon.
Making all in-bound traffic free is a super-aggressive (and much appreciated) move. As blhack pointed out Voxel's per-GB rate[1] before AWS dropped was extremely competitive, but they charge for in and out-bound data. AWS, after the 1st of July will only charge $0.12 for out-bound data and $0.00 for inbound data, effectively making it something like $0.06/GB compared to Voxel (I'm hand-waving this a bit to make a poi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought most AWS IP addresses were blocked by most admins. Does any one have experience scraping using Amazon.
I don't scrape, but I use an EC2 micro instance as a VPN endpoint when I am on an unsecured wifi network. It's a little annoying that some sites block me solely because I'm coming in from AWS (StackOverflow, I'm looking at you).
Dropbox must be super happy that half their bandwidth costs have disappeared!
Dropbox must be super happy that half their bandwidth costs have disappeared!
Also, backup solutions based on S3. Most of their traffic is inbound.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't be surprised if they put a fair use clause somewhere. Otherwise you could hypothetically run a fairly resource intensive bot that scrapes data 24x7 using up aws download bw for no cost.
Instances are already IO bound/capped. For example, if you start up a micro instance, you'll only be able to download at like 200kbps or something. So I'd assume the connection speed is linked to the size of the instance, and the bandwidth cost is integrated into that cost somewhat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Name me one good reason. Name me one.
Shitloads of rogue bots doing "social media monitoring". Shitloads of rogue bots stealing content for black-hat SEO. Shitloads of rogue bots harvesting email addresses. Shitloads of rogue bots submitting spammy replies.
Making all in-bound traffic free is a super-aggressive (and much appreciated) move. As blhack pointed out Voxel's per-GB rate[1] before AWS dropped was extremely competitive, but they charge for in and out-bound data. AWS, after the 1st of July will only charge $0.12 for out-bound data and $0.00 for inbound data, effectively making it something like $0.06/GB compared to Voxel (I'm hand-waving this a bit to make a poi…
It also makes it really appealing for a lot of data-analysis use cases, which are increasingly being done on EC2, because it's a nice way to burst up to a temporary cluster. That use case often has large inbound traffic, as you pull down datasets (say, some genomics data), but then comparatively little outbound traffic.
One possible advantage for Amazon could be, at least in my use case, that I may be inclined to spin up instances for less-CPU-intensive tasks. Also, being able to rely on the widely available remote access from EC2 is convenient.
I suppose if it gets me spending more time on their CPU cycles, they've picked up business. Interested to see where this policy leads.