Is Cloudflare working it's way to be a cloud service competitor to AWS or other services out there?
Yup. Look at the stock price lately, many people seem to think the same. Cloudflare will be a huge company in a few years.
Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
181–190 of 220 posts
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow! Cool! Very surprised that Cloudflare wouldn't charge an arm and a leg for such a service... considering they're moving the actual bits. I'm poking around at the Cloudflare website, what's the name of the aforementioned service? What term should I google? I'm ignorant of "modern Cloudflare" -- other than reading their fantastic technical blog, I've never used them in a professional capacity and don't know their p…
'bandwidth alliance' As far as I recall it's not a service or even any setting you have to set up, just a sort of policy.
"Bandwidth Alliance" seems to be some sort of B2B consortium.
I'll dig into this more later, but unless I'm missing something obvious (I very well might be...) there's not a easy/inexpensive method for me to sign up and join the "bandwidth alliance", so that data transfer from B2 to my laptop is free.
I have a few VPSs with Linode, which is a member of the "Bandwidth Alliance" but I don't see any details, numbers, prices, specs... Just a bunch of marketing :/
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#183Not sure why this is more appealing than Wasabi? As far as I can see, Wasabi is cheaper, has great speeds, fantastic S3 compatibility, their dashboard is a joy to use so what is the actual "special" thing here? I mean sure, it's a good thing to have more competition but the way everyone here is describing the situation makes it seem as if Cloudflare is going to be the cheapest & the best.
I believe the minimum object retention time is 3 months, which killed it for our use case. I.e. create a file today, delete it today, and pay for it for 3 months.
They also have a $5.99 minimum per month:
https://wasabi-support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600594...
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
'bandwidth alliance' As far as I recall it's not a service or even any setting you have to set up, just a sort of policy.
"Bandwidth Alliance" seems to be some sort of B2B consortium. I'll dig into this more later, but unless I'm missing something obvious (I very well might be...) there's not a easy/inexpensive method for me to sign up and join the "bandwidth alliance", so that data transfer from B2 to my laptop is free. I have a few VPSs with Linode, which is a member of the "Bandwidth Alliance" but I don't see any details, numbers, pr…
If you setup a free cloudflare proxy fronting your B2 bucket, then download from that, the egress from B2 is free because it's going to cloudflare and the egress from cloudflare is free because they don't charge for it.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 pro…
The way I read it is that for low-scale users, they're not going to have request pricing. For higher-scale users, "R2 will charge significantly less per-operation than the major providers". AWS charges $0.0004 per thousand GET requests. Let's say that R2 charges $0.0003 per thousand GET requests. That's still cheaper than AWS or Backblaze's B2 (even if just barely) and if they're not charging for bandwidth, then it's…
> Given that Cloudflare's costs are probably lower than Backblaze for bandwidth, that doesn't seem so unreasonable - but I could be very wrong.
At scale, bandwidth capacity purchases are symmetric - you buy the same amount up as you do down. As a provider of DDOS protection services, Cloudflare has to maintain a huge amount of ingress capacity - meaning they have a ton of egress capacity sitting unused.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#186Really curious to see how this goes. If they live up to the following paragraph, that's pretty game-changing: >> This cheaper price doesn’t come with reduced scalability. Behind the scenes, R2 automatically and intelligently manages the tiering of data to drive both performance at peak load and low-cost for infrequently requested objects. We’ve gotten rid of complex, manual tiering policies in favor of what developer…
Does Vantage offer comparisons for Backblaze B2, OVH etc? When looking at object storage, tail latency is probably the single most overlooked metric, and the most material differentiator between providers after bandwidth costs. Don't sweat the cent spent on storing an object, worry about the cost of the 6,000,0000 copies of it you'll ship after it's stored. As for bandwidth, CloudFlare becomes uninteresting the momen…
What's "real consumption"? I'm getting 1tb egress / day on a $20/mo plan.
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#187Will we be able to serve files from a R2 bucket through a subdomain like static.project.com/filename WITHOUT using a worker that wastes money on every request for no reason?
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Vantage offer comparisons for Backblaze B2, OVH etc? When looking at object storage, tail latency is probably the single most overlooked metric, and the most material differentiator between providers after bandwidth costs. Don't sweat the cent spent on storing an object, worry about the cost of the 6,000,0000 copies of it you'll ship after it's stored. As for bandwidth, CloudFlare becomes uninteresting the momen…
What's "real consumption"? I'm getting 1tb egress / day on a $20/mo plan.
> What's "real consumption"
Workloads you couldn't host on a cable modem
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#189I'm not a software developer so please pardon my ignorance, doesn't this put them at basically a "core complete modern cloud provider" - if you fully bought into architecting against them, with their workers product and all, could you fully build and run for CF?
Re: Cloudflare R2 storage: Rapid and reliable object storage, minus the egress fees
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really excited for R2 Storage. I am wondering if R2 can solve a limitation I was running into with BackBlaze. I had tried using BackBlaze 8 months ago as a much cheaper (especially with B2 and CF's Free Data Transfer partnership) replacement for Amazon S3 and was running into a limitation on B2. I had a scenario where my users can upload images from the browser to BackBlaze. I wanted the ability to control the file n…
I have this exact same use case for an app I’m building and would love an answer as well. I built on S3 as a result. When a product says “full S3 api compatibility” this becomes my question. Going further I don’t want to become someone else’s back door file repo for illegal shit. So presigned upload urls with an enforced file name and configurability over the size limit and expiration of the presignedpost (both in te…
Yes, file size limit is another thing I required in my setup which B2 didn't have.