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

Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

chooseacloud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#111

Post by digianarchist »

cyberferret wrote: post #35
turblety wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry @cyberferret. I previously listed Storj [1] but did a bit of research and it didn't actually look cheaper when you consider bandwidth cost. $0.015 per GB per month $0.05 per GB downloaded [1] https://storj.io/

Cool thanks! I presumed that it didn't meet some sort of criteria that was being discussed here. I just wanted to make sure there were no issues with the service itself per se.

They're in closed BETA. I looked into them but they are not that good for long term storage. Plus their payment system is centralized.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#112

Post by raiyu »

sitepodmatt wrote: post #36
martinald wrote: post #23

The bandwidth egress charges on AWS (and GCP/Azure) are way too high. It almost seems cartel like. Bandwidth costs have dropped by a huge factor over the past few years; but none of this has been passed on. I really hope backblaze and/or DO manage to cause the big three some hurt on this and get them to reduce prices significantly; 7c/GB is really high these days.

What are bandwidth costs? This comes up again and again, people see HE.net / Cogent / Level3 / Hibernia / NTT whatever offering 10gig handoff IP transit at a colo neutral location for X per month and somehow determine the true cost. When I suspect the reality is that much of cost is invested in routing equipment both internally and externally, evolving SDN and all the goodness it affords, being able to offer SLA per…

Actually you are a bit mistaken.

The larger the provider is the more they are able to negotiate a lower rate from transit providers. The larger a provider is the more peering they get which reduces the total amount of bandwidth they pay for in general.

Then when you consider the cost of the equipment vs the cost of the throughput you will see that as a network becomes larger, network equipment isn't the main cost driving factor, nor are network engineers.

Simply put Amazon is over charging customers by 10x on bandwidth fees.

If we are able to sell bandwidth to customers at $0.01 cents per GB profitably, which accounts for paying for transit, network equipment, and network engineers, turning a profit for reinvestment, then AWS should be offering you a price that is 10x less than $0.01 per GB because their bandwidth cost should be significantly better than ours.

Instead they are charging you a 10x higher price.

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#113

Post by davidgl »

hacknat wrote: post #53

I work for a company that has to provision hosted products for customers across all the clouds and the one that has been impressing me the most lately is Azure. The load balancers are also the gateways (sound network topology), so there is no need for elastic IPs, NAT Gateways, or proxy protocol. The other thing I like about Azure is they have storage classes that automatically cross region replicate. The automatic s…

https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/07/21/trends-cloud-computing...

Re: Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

#114

Post by icebraining »

tobias3 wrote: post #106
icebraining wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never used it in production; in what ways is minio lacking compared to Swift and Ceph?

S3 is an abstraction that gives you a limited amount of operations with limited guarantees (e.g. eventual consistency, can only replace whole files). What you get in return is easier scalability and performance. If you use an S3 API to store files (like minio does) you give up power and gain nothing. So you are better off using NFS, samba, webdav, ftp, etc. Additionally minio doesn't seem to sync files to the file sy…

That's curious, because the OpenStack Swift docs say "Objects are stored as binary files on the filesystem with metadata stored in the file’s extended attributes (xattrs)".

As far as I know, the advantage comes from exposing a course-grained API over the network, which is generally more efficient and reliable than doing many small operations. It would be hard to implement Minio's distributed mode using the filesystem API.

Post reply on HN