71–80 of 96 posts
Dropbox must be super happy that half their bandwidth costs have disappeared!
I'm blown away. This radically changes the cost for one of my core products (automated browsing from EC2 machines). I've thought for a long time that EC2 was getting comparatively very expensive for bandwidth (simply not decreasing their prices). I thought they would have to change it, but I didn't expect free!
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.
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.
Those are bad reasons to close your site to all of AWS.
As nupark2 mentioned, there are legitimate users routing traffic through EC2, even some bots that you'd want to visit your site. Archive.org comes to mind (many of there scrapers are or were behind AWS). Closing your site or app to a large swath of the web is the wrong solution. It's like killing a spider with a bazooka.
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 :)
I use CDNetworks, and at a 50TB commit I'm getting /much/ better pricing than that... I've even been quoted better pricing than that by Akamai (which people in this industry view as notoriously expensive). I might encourage you to drop the quotes around "real" and look at actually real CDNs (the kind you have to call and negotiate pricing with): they aren't as expensive as you apparently think they are.
Quotes are there because I've heard of people buying up "unlimited bandwidth" shared hosting packages, and using them as a cheap "CDN".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on this? Not disputing your point, but it would be nice if someone could jump in with some real world numbers or a rule of thumb.
It's because of the ratio of reads to writes. For many applications, especially in social/content, the creation traffic is an order of magnitude or two less than the consumption traffic. So free inbound bandwidth is a bit of a rounding error. Here's a somewhat old article that captures the rule. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianwee...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, backup solutions based on S3. Most of their traffic is inbound.
About 90% of Tarsnap's bandwidth is inbound... but most of Tarsnap's AWS costs are for storage, not bandwidth. Backup services tend to store a lot of cold data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried something that doesn't have the overhead of torrents and can make many concurrent connections like a local HK usenet server?
I've gone up to 10MB/sec...which is close enough to the theoretical limit of 100Mb/sec. Locally the product works as advertised. But only locally.
Fair enough. I use Usenet almost exclusively at this point so I would love that.
It's true though, I had this illusion of people with that kind of connection being able to connect to anyone on a quality server instantly.
This is probably a move in response to Windows Azure dropping its inbound data transfer rates to zero last week. When I was back in Windows Azure, we would often see AWS try to do a price-match whenever we changed prices drastically.
I know Amazon pays very little attention to competitors. However, their customers might have asked them to lower prices in response to Azure.
Trust me, Amazon keeps a very close watch on the competition. :)