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

Cloud Egress Costs

getdeploying.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 318 posts

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#241

Post by rambambram »

Let's say you pay a lot for some cloud provider and you find out that your app is best and cheapest served by a good ol' regular webhosting provider. Please, in that case, make sure you leave your money and data at independent webhosts. There's a trend going on - at least in Europe - of consolidating smaller webhosts into big players, under the guidance of some big groups (private equity?). They quickly raise their prices by 100's of percents.

I experienced this a couple of times with different webhosts (in the Netherlands) over the last three to four years. Very recently my monthly bill at one of them went up from around 3,- to around 18,-.

Whenever I read about 'egress costs' I usually laugh about that because I don't even understand it; my data is my data, why pay to get it off your hard drive!? But for some time I'm also seeing dark clouds for my own use cases. I don't find it hard to believe anymore that webhost after webhost is consolidating, trying to play AWS, upping the prices a lot, and finally... also establishing egress costs!??

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#242

Post by willtemperley »

DeathArrow wrote: post #220
zer00eyz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Everyone knew what the costs were going in. AWS, cloud was NEVER the cheaper solution. It was never faster, it was never better. It was easier, and easier came with a price. Like lambs to the slaughter lots of people embraced it. Amazon is a profitable company because of it.

>It was easier, and easier came with a price. I kind of doubt it's easier. If you use your own servers you need some stuff to manage them. If you use cloud, you need some cloud engineers to manage your cloud infrastructure. On top of that, if your developers use cloud APIs and frameworks, they have to learn that.

Yes, AWS-style cloud is just software-defined infrastructure.

It's like virtual lego - the bricks fit the same way as physical lego but the difference is you can rent as many virtual bricks as you like, almost instantly with little up-front cost.

You still need to know how to build the lego pirate ship either way.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#243

Post by skrebbel »

rambambram wrote: post #241

Let's say you pay a lot for some cloud provider and you find out that your app is best and cheapest served by a good ol' regular webhosting provider. Please, in that case, make sure you leave your money and data at independent webhosts. There's a trend going on - at least in Europe - of consolidating smaller webhosts into big players, under the guidance of some big groups (private equity?). They quickly raise their p…

Yeah wow huh. I had my wife’s food blog (wordpress) hosted at a Dutch provider called Neostrada. I think it was something like 50 euros per year at the start. They got bought, sent around emails with sleazy wording like “we’re upgrading your plan to fit our new pricing scheme” and then within ~2 years I ended up owing them 450 euros a year. I’ve never cancelled anything this quickly before.

A 9x price hike in just a few years has got to be the least scrupulous PE move I’ve ever witnessed in NL. I agree with your prediction that it’s just a matter of time before they tack on exorbitant egress fees.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#244

Post by ctrw »

amluto wrote: post #41
PreInternet01 wrote: post #7

The cost of egress traffic is a very good reason for many organizations to not fully migrate to a cloud provider anytime soon. And since, unlike with storage costs, there doesn't seem to be an actual reason (other than: it makes migrating to competitors cost-prohibitive in a subset of cases), that seems kind of... weird? Small example: an actual company I do some work for is in the business of delivering creative ass…

> other than: it makes migrating to competitors cost-prohibitive in a subset of cases My theory: it forces third party services into the same cloud. Suppose you use AWS and you want to pay a third party SaaS provider for some service involving moderate-to-large amounts of data. Here’s one of many examples: https://www.snowflake.com/en/data-cloud/pricing-options/ And look at this remarkable choice: you get to pick AWS…

It's not a theory it's literally why two projects I was on used snowflake in aws.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#245

Post by ctrw »

zer00eyz wrote: post #214
quickthrower2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So an anticompetitive practice.

No. Everyone knew what the costs were going in. AWS, cloud was NEVER the cheaper solution. It was never faster, it was never better. It was easier, and easier came with a price. Like lambs to the slaughter lots of people embraced it. Amazon is a profitable company because of it.

That is not how being anti-competitive works.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#246

Post by morningsam »

zer00eyz wrote: post #214
quickthrower2 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So an anticompetitive practice.

No. Everyone knew what the costs were going in. AWS, cloud was NEVER the cheaper solution. It was never faster, it was never better. It was easier, and easier came with a price. Like lambs to the slaughter lots of people embraced it. Amazon is a profitable company because of it.

There have been other instances in which exit fees, which is what this amounts to, were considered anticompetitive, e.g. [1] (although this was settled so there is no ruling). Google itself has started to waive egress costs for GCP customers leaving the platform last month, which, according to some sources, is simply a direct consequence of new EU legislation (Data Act) [2], but according to others is in anticipation of wider-reaching EU antitrust investigations [3].

[1]: https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/koch-foods-antitrust-ch...

[2]: https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366566360/Googles-data-e...

[3]: https://blog.min.io/googles-new-egress-policy/

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#247

Post by dns_snek »

alanfranz wrote: post #193

We should also remember that, for google cloud, if you’d like to migrate away you actually can without paying egress costs: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/eliminatin... This doesn’t change business as usual egress fees, it’s likely a stopgap to prevent being accused of anticompetitive practices.

Correction, you can apply to exit Google cloud without paying egress costs, subject to their approval.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#248

Post by dns_snek »

yakobwood wrote: post #104

Google announced Jan 11th they’re eliminating data transfer fees when migrating from Google Cloud: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/eliminatin...

They're not eliminating data transfer fees, they've added a process through which you can apply to have your egress fees eliminated, subject to their approval. That's an important distinction when it comes to big tech.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#249

Post by zer00eyz »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #231
zer00eyz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Everyone knew what the costs were going in. AWS, cloud was NEVER the cheaper solution. It was never faster, it was never better. It was easier, and easier came with a price. Like lambs to the slaughter lots of people embraced it. Amazon is a profitable company because of it.

Simply being expensive isn’t anti competitive. I wasn’t suggesting tbat.

I got that, but anticompetitive means something.

Cloud wasn't predatory in this... the price has always been there. If you lease a car and they mandate you get your oil changed with them for a price, and the price sucks, that's YOUR fault.

No one got locked into the cloud and THEN the egress prices went up... everyone went in knowing this.

The industry needs to man up and own shitty decisions rather than double down on them forever.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#250

Post by stephenr »

This has brought BunnyCDN to my attention as a possible replacement for Cloudflare on a download-heavy site.

Can anyone with experience/knowledge comment on the finer details of Bunny in terms of what can be cached (not worried about default rules more about hard limits) eg Cloudflare has size limits we regularly exceed, meaning the largest downloads all end up hitting the origin anyway.

I've looked at pricing for a bunch of other CDNs but they'd be hundreds to thousands of dollars per month for the amount of bandwidth we need (2-4TB/month), but it seems like Bunny might actually be cost effective, if they allow us to cache larger objects, even if it's for a shorter period.

Post reply on HN