201–210 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If storage lifetime is increasing it might not be so bad. Or compression/deduplication. As long as they have consistent ad revenue, they’ll be ok.
I wouldn’t believe dedupe would be a big thing with social media user created content.
I cannot speak for the big companies, but for private cloud storage, I suggest to go the route for self-hosting, all the tools are available in 2022: ZFS for reliability, Proxmox for separation of concerns, Opnsense/pfsense for access control, Nextcloud for convenience (if you need such file sync at all). Add a photovoltaic plant and your electricity bill will be _Ok_ (you should do this anyway). I have a 40 TB ZFS Z…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unconvinced that breaking them up is a good thing or not. But for me the biggest "for" argument isn't that the broken up companies will compete with each other (that makes no sense because you'd break them up along business lines where they don't compete anyway). Instead for me it is that it removes cross subsidies both financial (as in "we can give away this loss making application because we make so much money…
It’s interesting - those financial cross-subsidies could lead to a situation where the sum(consumer_value_from_free_product) > total_consumer_harm.
Earlier 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…
Wasabi's egress is not fully free as you make it sound. Their egress works like this: if you store 1 TB of data, you have 1 TB of free egress, as seen in their FAQ [0]. This means it's unfit for certain cases and another competitor could be a better option. [0]: https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Equally possible is that amazon's S3 margins are getting better. Which is acceptable if they're providing better value in features. From casually looking around it seems that Backblaze's B2 is much cheaper, but doesn't have a good story around reliability, namely uptime guarantees and simple multi-region redundancy. If Backblaze could match AWS in this regard, and with their Bandwidth Alliance with Cloudflare, they…
Earlier 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…
> and no fees for egress This is somewhat wrong. You have to serve R2 Objects via a Worker which will cost you something per hit. So you have a kind of egress fee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as de facto decreases (widely but privately negotiated, e.g. "sticker price"). Widely, AWS doesn't negotiate on pricing. Small business get the list price or they can switch to another cloud. Medium and large businesses (from 100 employees to Fortune 500) get blanket discounts (excl. some specific line items) in exchange for a spend commitment, e.g. if you commit to at least $10M AWS spend per year, you'll get a 10…
I was at two companies that negotiated data transfer rates with a minimum commitment . I think one was $0.01/GB min of 5PB a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as de facto decreases (widely but privately negotiated, e.g. "sticker price"). Widely, AWS doesn't negotiate on pricing. Small business get the list price or they can switch to another cloud. Medium and large businesses (from 100 employees to Fortune 500) get blanket discounts (excl. some specific line items) in exchange for a spend commitment, e.g. if you commit to at least $10M AWS spend per year, you'll get a 10…
FWIW $10M is at least 1 order of magnitude, and in some cases 2 orders of magnitude higher than necessary in order to negotiate discounts, depending on services used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100/s is 3 billion per year. Postgres has a hard limit of 4 billion blobs in a column. that ignores the reality that RDS storage is comparatively expensive.
If you think a table might get anywhere near this size (blobs or not), I highly recommend table partitioning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was at two companies that negotiated data transfer rates with a minimum commitment . I think one was $0.01/GB min of 5PB a month.
I think at one company I worked, our discount specifically excluded data transfer. It is X% off for all AWS services not including their data transfer costs (both inter-AZ and extra-VPC). It makes sense to me that AWS, with their networking-heavy pricing, negotiates on services and data transfer separately.