Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S3 isn't getting cheaper

matt-rickard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 215 posts

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#101

Post by lstamour »

Dunedan wrote: post #20
rckrd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those blog posts are a good start. I was referencing the full pricing page for s3 that breaks down by region and class. AFAIK there are some third parties that track the granular data, but it's not preserved anywhere on the AWS page. A lot of price decreases also might have happened silently (without a blog post) or as de facto decreases (widely but privately negotiated, e.g. "sticker price").

> I was referencing the full pricing page for s3 that breaks down by region and class. You were referring to the announcements and these announcements are still available. The actual pricing pages of course only show current prices. What would be the motivation for AWS to show outdated prices there as well? No other company I can think of does that and given the complexity of the pricing structure for AWS services th…

I can say that price _increases_ happened for a few AWS products in specific regions/countries without blog posts. Often AWS simply emails affected customers 1-3 months in advance and after making the change. That said, I imagine prices shifted due to currency, labour costs, energy costs or other regional concerns. And I’ve seen the opposite - I’ve seen AWS freeze prices and eat the cost differences long after they should have raised costs. It varies by product and region and marketing strategy, I expect.

The only rule of thumb is what is posted on the pricing page is supposed to be what you get charged. No APIs exist for the most part, and the actual charges can sometimes differ anyway (e.g. grandfathered pricing etc.)

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#102

Post by Rodeoclash »

Theirs other options available depending on your risk appetite.

For example, I built a file sharing tool (https://www.fileyeet.io/) off the back of Storj (https://www.storj.io/) which is a distributed file storage backed by a crypto coin (maybe one of the few legitimate uses of crypto, although I'm not convinced yet).

Storj was a much cheaper option than S3 although I do have to trust that their systems are as secure as the advertise them to be. Likewise, R2 seems like a good "in-between" option.

Both R2 and Storj share the S3 API for integrating with them.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#103

Post by jrochkind1 »

gsanderson wrote: post #48
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

The main issue we have with S3 is the extortionary egress bandwidth fee. Storage pricing seems OK, but what's the point if I can't send those files to users?

The margin on bandwidth is enormous. I think Cloudflare did some research into it a while back. But there are rivals providing cheaper S3-compatible storage at scale. Cloudflare's R2 ($15/TB, and no fees for egress). Oracle Cloud Storage ($25/TB, and first 10TB of egress is free). There's Wasabi ($5.99/TB, and no fees for egress or API requests). To name but three. Of course each of those have drawbacks e.g Wasabi is…

I didn't realize Cloudflare R2 was available yet. Took a look based on your mention... "currently in beta". But you can still just sign up and use it already?

Anyone here done that and want to report back?

Ah, I found this posted by it's author elsewhere in these threads:

https://www.vantage.sh/blog/cloudflare-r2-aws-s3-comparison

Very useful. Wait.... "no public access" AND "no pre-signed URLs"? Am I misunderstanding what that means? That would seem to make this not use cases of serving files to end-users? or what am I missing?

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#104

Post by dilyevsky »

upupandup wrote: post #45
js4ever wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you get what you paid for but how much of a difference is there? The cost saving it advertises is quite alluring.

Afaik Backblaze has maintenance every Thursday during which they don’t guarantee uptime.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#105

Post by tick_tock_tick »

epolanski wrote: post #97
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #18

Cloudflare's entry into this market will be interesting no bandwidth costs might put real pressure on AWS to get reasonable with it's pricing. https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-r2-object-storage/

That sounds a lot like "let's hope the new AMD GPUs will be priced low so Nvidia will cut their prices"

I mean they announced pricing already and it's much cheaper.... And are you implying that if AMD prices GPUs cheaply doesn't impact Nvidia?

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#106

Post by luhn »

AWS's pricing strategy changed a few years ago. Previously, they'd drop prices aggressively with much fanfare every time they did. Nowadays, they almost never drop prices, but release new offerings they say will save money [for certain use cases]:

- Gravitron 2 is slightly cheaper than Intel instances, with a greater price/performance ratio—at least for some applications.

- m6i is same price as m5, but new generation of CPU and increased network performance.

- gp3 is 20% cheaper than gp2 and has better baseline performance. It can also scale performance independently of size, so no more overprovisioning storage to hit a certain IOPS.

- S3 has IA, Glacier, Glacier Deep Archive, all offering cheaper storage but more expensive retrieval.

Not defending AWS here, just noting that they don't seem to be interested in direct price reductions anymore.

(EDIT: Previously I stated gp3 and gp2 were the same price. Thanks zerocrates and maxxam for the correction.)

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#107

Post by vorpalhex »

jonatron wrote: post #62
vorpalhex wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use DO spaces heavily - for images no less. It works great. What issues did you have?

Uploaded about 100 images. Put those images on a page. 50% of them timed out when downloading. Maybe I was just unlucky, but it was a good way to make me instantly lose all confidence DO Spaces. S3 and Backblaze B2 worked fine for the same thing at the same time as when this happened.

That's definitely incorrect behavior. Did you reach out to support?

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#108

Post by vorpalhex »

upupandup wrote: post #80
vorpalhex wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, several. Minio is the big one but I believe Ceph can do this too. Others exist. Disk is cheap. Real cheap.

ah yes minio! the one issue i have with using VPS for production is, are they hardened? or is it enough just with proper unix user management and UFW? I have this fear that the VPS box has attack surfaces or zero day vulnerabilities but when I am on the cloud I do not have this worry. Perhaps irrational but can't argue with the peace of mind that expensive clouds offer. Although we've seen misconfigured S3 buckets le…

What makes you believe the threat model for AWS is different than DO? They are just VMs at the end of the day.

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#109

Post by chc »

themitigating wrote: post #96
ctvo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those blog posts are a good start. I was referencing the full pricing page for s3 that breaks down by region and class. This is not a good look. From your blog post: > It's hard to come to a firm conclusion since pricing data is held very secretly (AWS quickly deletes announcements of historical price decreases). There’s nothing wrong with “I missed that. Thanks, let me update the blog”.

If that's his core argument then it undermines the entire blog post right? Not to mention it calls into question other information he's provided .All AWS pricing is available publicly , saying the prices are "held very secretly" and being obviously wrong isn't a good look.

It doesn't appear to be his core argument, so what is the point of this hypothetical?

Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper

#110

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

Gigachad wrote: post #95
pclmulqdq wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a huge concern for me too. I suspect that FB and Youtube will start auto-deleting old content that people haven't seen in the last X months.

There would be exabytes of content on youtube over 5 years old with under 20 views. Stuff no one will miss when its gone.

Except people that use YT as a family video archive
Post reply on HN