uh,, i have to ask. how about using this R2 to host peertube content? it would be somewhat expensive but you are not concerned with egress?
Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
101–110 of 220 posts
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#102I'm trying to figure out the long-con of Cloudflare. Too many free/fantastic products.
It certainly ain't free or cheap if you are running a real business with real traffic and real customers.
However, still totally worth it, easily. Just saying they have a healthy B2B business model.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#103Nice to see someone flipping the script and encroaching on AWS' territory rather than vice a versa
Taking the have-a-much-better-product route to siphoning use from AWS is particularly ambitious. I hope it works out. AWS has had it a little too easy for too long
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#104What's the censorship policy? Is this going to be content-neutral, like Cloudflare was when fronting ISIS websites? Or is this going to be fine-until-bad-PR, like when Cloudflare decided to stop hosting The Daily Stormer? There is a special kind of lock-in when it comes to object storage, as generally you use something like this when the data is too big to store another copy of locally or at another provider. It's no…
> I am hesitant to put any large amount of data into a service without a crystal clear statement on this, so that I can know up front whether or not a business needs to maintain a second, duplicate object store somewhere else for business continuity.
It's a mistake to rely on a clear statement when you can't afford to lose your data. Stuff happens all the time... mistakes, malware, an expired credit card, etc. Independently of the provider you decide to use, I'm not sure if a backup is optional in your case.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#105This is fantastic, I only need now a Cloudflare RDMS to run my entire business on Cloudflare. (Workers KV is great but there's a ton of times that you just need an actual relational database)
Durable Objects is as close as we come today, but we still have two innovation weeks left this year.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#106This is interesting ...
For the longest time we tried to convince people that they should have an off-amazon archive of their S3 data ... we even ran an ads to that effect in 2012[1].
The (obvious) reason this isn't compelling is the cost of egress. It's just (relatively) too expensive to offload your S3 assets to some third party on a regular basis.
So if R2 is S3 with no egress, suddenly there is a value proposition again.
Further, unlike in 2012, in 2021 we have really great tooling in the form of 'rclone'[2][3] which allows you to move data from cloud to cloud without involving your own bandwidth.
[1] The tagline was "Your infrastructure is on AWS and your backups are on AWS. You're doing it wrong."
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#107This is interesting ... For the longest time we tried to convince people that they should have an off-amazon archive of their S3 data ... we even ran an ads to that effect in 2012[1]. The (obvious) reason this isn't compelling is the cost of egress. It's just (relatively) too expensive to offload your S3 assets to some third party on a regular basis. So if R2 is S3 with no egress, suddenly there is a value propositio…
The [3] resource is fantastic! Have you tried sponsoring rclone? I was studying their docs last week, and I'm sure people reading the docs are interested in this use case of moving between clouds without using their own bandwidth.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#108This is interesting ... For the longest time we tried to convince people that they should have an off-amazon archive of their S3 data ... we even ran an ads to that effect in 2012[1]. The (obvious) reason this isn't compelling is the cost of egress. It's just (relatively) too expensive to offload your S3 assets to some third party on a regular basis. So if R2 is S3 with no egress, suddenly there is a value propositio…
> So if R2 is S3 with no egress, suddenly there is a value proposition again.
That doesn't appear to be what they're doing, they don't seem to have changed their existing operating model at all:
> R2 will zero-rate infrequent storage operations under a threshold — currently planned to be in the single digit requests per second range. Above this range, R2 will charge significantly less per-operation than the major providers. Our object storage will be extremely inexpensive for infrequent access and yet capable of and cheaper than major incumbent providers at scale.
What I read this as is "we won't bill you until your traffic spikes, then you'll pay us, oh how you'll pay us"
Transparent bandwidth pricing would be a far more interesting announcement. This is the second post I've seen from CloudFlare in recent months throwing bricks at AWS over bandwidth pricing, while failing to mention CloudFlare bandwidth is some of the most expensive available.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#109So the naming strategy is to call it R2, because it comes before S3? I like it
Matthew tweeted "Why R2? Because it’s S3 minus the one most annoying thing: egregious egress."
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#110This is interesting ... For the longest time we tried to convince people that they should have an off-amazon archive of their S3 data ... we even ran an ads to that effect in 2012[1]. The (obvious) reason this isn't compelling is the cost of egress. It's just (relatively) too expensive to offload your S3 assets to some third party on a regular basis. So if R2 is S3 with no egress, suddenly there is a value propositio…
The [3] resource is fantastic! Have you tried sponsoring rclone? I was studying their docs last week, and I'm sure people reading the docs are interested in this use case of moving between clouds without using their own bandwidth.
Thanks - I made a point to have that document created not specifically with rsync.net use-case in mind.
You can follow that howto with any two cloud endpoints if you wanted to.