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

AWS Snowcone

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: AWS Snowcone

#161

Post by djohnston »

aketchum wrote: post #13

I must not interact with big enough data to understand, but what is the point of this? I have watched/read several of the Snow product descriptions from AWS and I am still not quite sure I understand the point. It seems like a way to sync local big data to AWS cloud storage for data that is too large to realistically transfer via the internet. So is this simply a sneakernet external harddrive because physically shipp…

I had up back up several years of training data off-site and we used snowball to ship a few tbs of images. Not sure it was completely necessary but it was fun

Re: AWS Snowcone

#162

Post by 3pt14159 »

binaryblitz wrote: post #107
3pt14159 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never ceases to amaze me that people pay that much for transfer. It's one tenth the price on DigitalOcean and it isn't like this is comparing two different types of things.

DO is incredibly limited in terms of products compared to AWS.

Yes but this is just data storage. I get it if you need to be on network, yadda, yadda, but so many people just senselessly use S3 and rack up bills that are easily avoidable.

Re: AWS Snowcone

#163

Post by Dylan16807 »

luhn wrote: post #63
N_A_T_E wrote: post #60

All of this makes sense to me, except I have no idea how they fit 100tb of capacity in a box that small. Aren't HDDs maxing out around 16TB these days? They couldn't fit 6 drives in there.

Not sure where you're seeing 100TB? > AWS Snowcone weighs 4.5 pounds and includes 8 terabytes of usable storage

Which makes it interesting in the other direction. If this box is worth two hundred dollars a month and two thousand dollars upon loss, why not put in a drive twice as big for an extra $200?

Re: AWS Snowcone

#164

Post by jeremyjh »

binaryblitz wrote: post #107
3pt14159 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never ceases to amaze me that people pay that much for transfer. It's one tenth the price on DigitalOcean and it isn't like this is comparing two different types of things.

DO is incredibly limited in terms of products compared to AWS.

What does that have to do with the price of bandwidth?

Re: AWS Snowcone

#165

Post by Dylan16807 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #155
jayd16 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost to return the box is more than a cardboard box, its not feasible.

Not necessarily. If the box costs 10 times as much, but they come up with a way to use the box 12 times, it was worth it. That won't work if the recipient doesn't have a need to mail something back, but for a use case where you expected most boxes would be shipped back (maybe a phone repair company?), it could absolutely make sense.

The post you're saying "not necessarily" to has nothing to do with the cost of the box itself. If returning it costs too much, the box could be free and you'd lose money.

Re: AWS Snowcone

#166

Post by typedef_struct »

reaperducer wrote: post #66
aketchum wrote: post #13

I must not interact with big enough data to understand, but what is the point of this? I have watched/read several of the Snow product descriptions from AWS and I am still not quite sure I understand the point. It seems like a way to sync local big data to AWS cloud storage for data that is too large to realistically transfer via the internet. So is this simply a sneakernet external harddrive because physically shipp…

I work in healthcare, sometimes we have to go to places with no internet, and sometimes with no electricity. We gather a lot of HIPAA-protected data. This might be useful for those events. Sometimes, even when we're in the middle of a big city, there's still no secure or reliable internet connection at the location we've been given, so this might be good for those cases, too. I'm not on the infrastructure side of thi…

Lord of the Rings was almost stolen this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndge8WlM9q8

Re: AWS Snowcone

#167

Post by jcims »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #165
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. If the box costs 10 times as much, but they come up with a way to use the box 12 times, it was worth it. That won't work if the recipient doesn't have a need to mail something back, but for a use case where you expected most boxes would be shipped back (maybe a phone repair company?), it could absolutely make sense.

The post you're saying "not necessarily" to has nothing to do with the cost of the box itself. If returning it costs too much, the box could be free and you'd lose money.

Just make it up in volume! ;)

Re: AWS Snowcone

#168

Post by deviation »

Seems relatively risk-adverse. Glad they're providing more variety to their data transferral services, but this really does seem like an extremely niche system that not many companies will fully utilise.

Re: AWS Snowcone

#170

Post by bentcorner »

ceejayoz wrote: post #160
jayd16 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost to return the box is more than a cardboard box, its not feasible.

A lot of Amazon users get daily/weekly drop offs, and increasingly via Amazon’s own logistics. Seems fairly trivial to have those drivers pick up last week’s carriers when they drop off this one’s.

They did that with Amazon Fresh, and (at least from my perspective of several years ago) I think the asymmetry between # of packages and frequency of delivery didn't work out for them that well. We'd end up holding onto a stack of 4-5 crates for a week or so, which means Amazon would have to float probably a ton of these across their customers. That's all a guess though, but these days we get deliveries in plastic/paper bags, no reusable containers, so something must not have worked out.

That said, grocery delivery is much more "bursty" than package delivery.

Post reply on HN