Also need to take into account decreasing cost of bandwidth. This article only mentioned disk storage as an underlying cost.
S3 isn't getting cheaper
111–120 of 215 posts
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 misunderstandin…
I haven't used it, but my understanding from reading about it is that the intended use-case is to create a Worker (roughly equivalent to an AWS Lambda) that mediates access to the bucket. So you could have the worker provide public access, or have the worker do some kind of authentication — you just have to roll that part yourself.
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
already happening. ever notice youtube videos with low view counts take a really long time to load?
Presages an interesting digital future in which nothing ever truly goes away, it just gets slower and slower. An endless inner migration that never quite hits the stopping point, and which could theoretically be reversed if only the slowed content garnered enough attention.
Endlessly falling towards an event horizon of obscurity, but never reaching it (from the perspective of an external observer).
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#114This is eventually why every cloud migration will eventually get undone: As cloud providers dial up the profit margins, going on prem will be a no-brainer.
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#115AWS'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…
I seemed to remember gp3 being (incrementally) cheaper than gp2... yeah, gp3 is 8 cents per GB-month vs 10 for gp2 in us-east-1. That's actually a reasonably significant price difference, now that I look at it.
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#116AWS'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…
gp3 are 20% cheaper than gp2 per GB
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#117Storage price reductions slowing down or even coming to a halt makes me wonder what this means for "infinite storage" companies. I'm talking services like Facebook, Youtube, that are "free" (ad supported) where on a daily basis an absurd amount of new content is added, yet almost nothing ever removed. If storage needs grow endlessly yet storage costs stopped going down, wouldn't that mean that the model in the long t…
I don't think the article indicates that storage isn't getting cheaper. Equally possible is that amazon's S3 margins are getting better.
For companies like Facebook and YouTube it is possible that they're not affected in the same way that a regular S3 customer would be.
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#118Earlier 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.
How does that compare to today’s data though, given larger numbers of higher-bitrate higher-resolution videos?
Perhaps during the first year of youtube’s existence people uploaded an exabyte of video… but if people today are uploading one exabyte per day, then it hardly seems worth the hassle of deleting that first year.
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#119AWS'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…
This is how every market player is incentivized to behave, apart from regulatory authorities acting to prosecute monopolistic behavior.
1. Price and compete aggressively to grow market share, put competitors out of business, and even transform the market, if possible
2. Once you become the dominant player (i.e. a monopoly), raise prices (or don't lower them) as much as possible without damaging your market position
This is why it's so important, especially in the US, for government to begin aggressively enforcing antitrust law again -- something we've failed to do against companies founded since the 1980s.
Those laws are there for a reason - not just as a weapon against "evil" (though Standard Oil was admittedly pretty bad) but to keep the market healthy and growing. There are so many positive second- and third-order effects that occur only when competition is healthy and well-regulated, and when prices are transparent.
Re: S3 isn't getting cheaper
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 think Cloudflare did some research into it a while back I remember! They called it the Bandwidth Alliance https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/
Yes! That was it. There was a blog post too with the estimated markup: https://blog.cloudflare.com/aws-egregious-egress/