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

Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#21

Post by londons_explore »

adam_arthur wrote: post #18
londons_explore wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shows market failure when someone can offer exactly the same service as a competitor (an S3 API) for an 80% lower price, and not almost immediately take over the whole market. I think governments need to step in and require that compute platforms like AWS are split up into constituent parts, and there is no cost disadvantage to mix-n-matching between suppliers. Eg. VM's on Azure and storage across the road…

There's a natural stickiness to cloud infra and SaaS which lends providers a pseudo monopolistic pricing power, even when competitors are present. Some regulation requiring a common API and one click solution to transfer between providers would help solve this. Needs to be implemented intelligently though

One simple way to do it would be if the FTC announced:

> From January 1st 2023, we will consider it anti-competitive for cloud providers to price internal service bandwidth at a rate lower than internet bandwidth to a competing service.

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#22

Post by adam_arthur »

londons_explore wrote: post #21
adam_arthur wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a natural stickiness to cloud infra and SaaS which lends providers a pseudo monopolistic pricing power, even when competitors are present. Some regulation requiring a common API and one click solution to transfer between providers would help solve this. Needs to be implemented intelligently though

One simple way to do it would be if the FTC announced: > From January 1st 2023, we will consider it anti-competitive for cloud providers to price internal service bandwidth at a rate lower than internet bandwidth to a competing service.

Yeah, a lot of thought needs to be put into the actual rule, but something along these lines... While accounting for unintended consequences

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#23

Post by throwaway48484 »

londons_explore wrote: post #21
adam_arthur wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a natural stickiness to cloud infra and SaaS which lends providers a pseudo monopolistic pricing power, even when competitors are present. Some regulation requiring a common API and one click solution to transfer between providers would help solve this. Needs to be implemented intelligently though

One simple way to do it would be if the FTC announced: > From January 1st 2023, we will consider it anti-competitive for cloud providers to price internal service bandwidth at a rate lower than internet bandwidth to a competing service.

Big companies like Amazon, Google or Microsoft could set the price to zero, and their smaller competitors would be losing a lot of money each month? Basically an easy way to get rid of the competition

Sounds like it would mostly benefit the large companies

It would be better if internet was considered basic infrastructure and funded by taxes like roads.

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#24

Post by elithrar »

TheP1000 wrote: post #19

The automatic region thing is problematic for many companies. I would much rather be able to explicitly choose this and know that customers data is where I told them it would be.

From the blog:

> ... we know that data locality is important for a good deal of compliance use cases. Jurisdictional restrictions will allow developers to set a jurisdiction like the ‘EU’ that would prevent data from leaving the jurisdiction.

It's coming: we understand the importance of data locality & residency requirements.

(I work at CF)

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#25

Post by adoxyz »

Loving R2. I am having an issue of uploading larger files though, like 100MB+. The error I get is:

Unable to write file at location: JrF3FnkA9W.webm. An exception occurred while uploading parts to a multipart upload. The following parts had errors: - Part 17: Error executing "UploadPart" on {URL}

with the message:

"Reduce your concurrent request rate for the same object."

Is this an issue on my end or CloudFlare's? I'm not doing anything aggressive, trying to upload 1 video at a time using Laravel's S3 filesystem driver. It works great on smaller files.

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#26

Post by vlovich123 »

adoxyz wrote: post #25

Loving R2. I am having an issue of uploading larger files though, like 100MB+. The error I get is: Unable to write file at location: JrF3FnkA9W.webm. An exception occurred while uploading parts to a multipart upload. The following parts had errors: - Part 17: Error executing "UploadPart" on {URL} with the message: "Reduce your concurrent request rate for the same object." Is this an issue on my end or CloudFlare's? I…

Known issue. Currently multipart uploads can only be uploaded at 2 parts per upload ID concurrently. We have a fix pending that should fix that bottleneck within the next month or so (maybe sooner). The change will show up on https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/changelog/

For now there are typically settings you can configure in whatever client you're using to lower the concurrency for uploads.

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#27

Post by adoxyz »

vlovich123 wrote: post #26
adoxyz wrote: post #25

Loving R2. I am having an issue of uploading larger files though, like 100MB+. The error I get is: Unable to write file at location: JrF3FnkA9W.webm. An exception occurred while uploading parts to a multipart upload. The following parts had errors: - Part 17: Error executing "UploadPart" on {URL} with the message: "Reduce your concurrent request rate for the same object." Is this an issue on my end or CloudFlare's? I…

Known issue. Currently multipart uploads can only be uploaded at 2 parts per upload ID concurrently. We have a fix pending that should fix that bottleneck within the next month or so (maybe sooner). The change will show up on https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/changelog/ For now there are typically settings you can configure in whatever client you're using to lower the concurrency for uploads.

Awesome. thank you for the answer :)

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#28

Post by brodock »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #20

Using the same price for read requests, regardless of size feels weird to me (S3 is the same for internal use). The cost to the provider of serving a 100kB file and a 100GB file must be quite different, so why price them the same to the user?

The cost for the egress/ingress link is fixed by how large the pipe is not by how much you use the pipe.

Re: Cloudflare’s Zero Egress Fee Object Storage, R2, Is Now GA

#29

Post by ryan29 »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #5
waskip wrote: post #2

I’m storing 87TB on https://wasabi.com/ for ~$515 a month

The trick with Wasabi is that you are generally expected to not retrieve more than you’ve input in the same month, no? “Less egress” would essentially be the trick on wasabi where zero egress cost is the defining feature of R2. Of course, there must be limits to it but it is interesting. Wonder if at this point teams start to consider different S3 providers for different weekends

> The trick with Wasabi is that you are generally expected to not retrieve more than you’ve input in the same month, no?

No. It's basically one download of all your data in 1 month [1].

> For example, if you store 100 TB with Wasabi and download (egress) 100 TB or less within a monthly billing cycle, then your storage use case is a good fit for our policy. If your monthly downloads exceed 100 TB, then your use case is not a good fit.

In my experience it's an excellent fit for backups if you run disaster recovery tests quarterly on each set and have enough sets to run on a rotating, monthly schedule. You're only downloading about 25% per month at that point.

1. https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/#free-egress-policy

Post reply on HN