21–30 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why haven't there been a upstart taking market share? Why do only the big players get into the game and hold similar costs?
DigitalOcean, Linode, Hetzner, Vultr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The prices are in different units. S3 is $/GB-Mo, raw storage is in $/GB. So, when they are equal on the graph, you are paying each month to AWS what the cost of the raw disk is. Now, yes, you need a lot more than just raw disk to effectively store data, but even if you just assume a 5-year lifespan for that disk, the price difference displayed on the graph as equality is actually a 60x difference in plain $. The pri…
Now factor in redundancy and server costs, and the difference is not so huge. You're still paying a multiple of the raw cost, but unless you're storing on the exabyte scale I think it shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Cost of a single engineer to manage a Minio cluster probably already outweighs the extra cost you're paying at any reasonable scale (i.e. most companies). And if you're a big player…
It's well known how to build a storage node whose cost is mostly disks, let's say 50% of the hardware is not disks.
So, redundancy and server costs explain up to a 6x mark up.
Power and networking really shouldn't account for the other 54x.
Lately im doing Backblaze B2 + Bunny CDN and im very satisfied with the prices
We deal with payloads that are just a little too big for a database (we run Postgres and Clickhouse) but just too frequent (~100 per second) and small (think largish json blobs) to be effective on S3.
We are write heavy. Reads are probably 1% but need to be instant for a good UI and API experience.
Lately im doing Backblaze B2 + Bunny CDN and im very satisfied with the prices
Blackblaze reliability and performance are below aws, same for bunny cdn. Although I understand it can be interesting for some use cases where perf/reliability is not critical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now factor in redundancy and server costs, and the difference is not so huge. You're still paying a multiple of the raw cost, but unless you're storing on the exabyte scale I think it shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Cost of a single engineer to manage a Minio cluster probably already outweighs the extra cost you're paying at any reasonable scale (i.e. most companies). And if you're a big player…
They use wide erasure code stripes, so redundancy is ~ 1x within a data center. Let's assume 3 data centers. It's well known how to build a storage node whose cost is mostly disks, let's say 50% of the hardware is not disks. So, redundancy and server costs explain up to a 6x mark up. Power and networking really shouldn't account for the other 54x.
My other take on this is that given how slowly HDD costs are going down at this point, tape is going to remain relevant for some consumers for a lot longer than many of us thought.
I suspect it might be an issue of "cheap enough". For smaller Projects, the s3 storage cost doesn't matter too much. Medium sized projects may find the tradeoff between price vs cost of a custom solution to still be more than good enough. Large enough projects simply chose a different, more specialized solution anyway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now factor in redundancy and server costs, and the difference is not so huge. You're still paying a multiple of the raw cost, but unless you're storing on the exabyte scale I think it shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Cost of a single engineer to manage a Minio cluster probably already outweighs the extra cost you're paying at any reasonable scale (i.e. most companies). And if you're a big player…
They use wide erasure code stripes, so redundancy is ~ 1x within a data center. Let's assume 3 data centers. It's well known how to build a storage node whose cost is mostly disks, let's say 50% of the hardware is not disks. So, redundancy and server costs explain up to a 6x mark up. Power and networking really shouldn't account for the other 54x.
Don't get me wrong, S3 is expensive, but replicating the availability, feature set and scalability is going to be very expensive, too. You can cheap out if you don't need these features, of course.
For my company, neither egress nor storage cost are the big issue. It’s the API call (PUT) cost. We deal with payloads that are just a little too big for a database (we run Postgres and Clickhouse) but just too frequent (~100 per second) and small (think largish json blobs) to be effective on S3. We are write heavy. Reads are probably 1% but need to be instant for a good UI and API experience.