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

311–318 of 318 posts

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#311

Post by nixgeek »

amluto wrote: post #308
nixgeek wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good chunk of network capital is also amortized into these costs, it isn't just the 20 cents per megabit for IP settlement, it would also be all the routers those ports are connected to, the racks those sit in, the electricity those consume, and the networks beneath that from the hypervisor upwards. Add on the usual and egregious $150-400/mo for a SMF/OS1 crossconnect in many datacenters. Now, I'll grant you, "not…

> A good chunk of network capital is also amortized into these costs, it isn't just the 20 cents per megabit for IP settlement, it would also be all the routers those ports are connected to, the racks those sit in, the electricity those consume, and the networks beneath that from the hypervisor upwards. Some of that is capex, and some is opex. But it's worth noting that the hyperscalers are doing something far, for m…

Notably, anywhere in the AZ is simply a launch constraint, and the hyperscaler can and does place you in the most advantageous way for them which matches against the 'customer promise' (constraint). They in practice do model both the volume and cost of East-West traffic in their network topology and will wherever possible not place Instance A and Instance B all that far apart in the AZ, particularly if that AZ is one of the big ones with 20+ datacenters worth of capacity.

All the other points you made are also excellent.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#312

Post by creatonez »

stephenr wrote: post #276
naiv wrote: post #2

I think the overview is missing a column of what data is actually allowed for 'free' egress. Iirc eg Cloudflare does not allow videos etc. as part of their free tier. edit: confused ingress and egress

Another factor when it's a CDN is what they will/won't allow to be cached (and thus moving the point of mass-egress from your origin to their network). Cloudflare has limits on the size of objects that can be cached, making it relatively impractical to use for a download-focused site with resources more than a few hundred MB.

To be exact, it has a limit of 512 MiB for free, pro, and business, and 5 GiB per file in enterprise. Their proxying service also has an HTTP upload body size limit of 100 MiB, which is 500 MiB for enterprise.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#313

Post by hughesjj »

wmf wrote: post #95
sgarland wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inter-AZ charges kill me. They’re charging you for traffic over what is almost certainly private fiber, of a distance no more than 50 miles or so. Just absurd. Then, they have the audacity to recommend you make everything Multi-AZ. “Don’t worry, RDS-RDS traffic isn’t billed!” Yes, but the apps running in us-east-1a that are hitting -1b and -1c due to load balancers most assuredly do bill for traffic.

Not billing for S3 and RDS replication traffic is also an unfair subsidy for those services.

Isn't that baked into the storage costs and put/get operations?

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#314

Post by kiitos »

mgaunard wrote: post #240
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…

There is no scenario in which cloud is cheaper than bare metal to operate. What's cheaper with cloud is that you don't need upfront costs, but here, you already have the whole infrastructure already there, up and running. Why would you even consider getting rid of it and replacing it with AWS, makes no sense.

It's weird that AWS is just absurdly profitable, then, isn't it?

(You're wrong, there are many such scenarios)

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#315

Post by ksarw »

rezonant wrote: post #256
ksarw wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Cloudflare's free egress covers video storage and retrieval https://community.cloudflare.com/t/can-we-serve-video-with-r... Please correct me if I am mistaken; also R2 is not a CDN, and more like s3 in terms of delivering from the edge No issue with your comment specifically, just wondering if you know. currently using s3+cloudfront for mp4 storage+delivery, and would like to move to something better if…

> Please correct me if I am mistaken; also R2 is not a CDN, and more like s3 in terms of delivering from the edge Yes, it uses Cloudflare's edge network and caching infrastructure when you use a custom domain (really the only option because usage of the default domain is very limited). So yes, it's a CDN :-) https://community.cloudflare.com/t/cdn-support-for-r2/514573 > currently using s3+cloudfront for mp4 storage+d…

I see, thanks for sharing!

I think given the cost advantage for s3 for storage, it seems almost better to pull from R2 into s3 for long-term storage (some inverse slurper).

It's good to hear though that R2 can singlehandedly match s3+cloudfront; that being said, video delivery is a bit different I'd imagine, even s3+cloudfront is finnicky with range requests etc.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#316

Post by modernpacifist »

GreymanTheGrey wrote: post #309
modernpacifist wrote: post #293

Having seen the other side of the fence (the hyperscaler side) I’m kind of bored with egress cost being continuously compared with your standard bare-metal hosting provider for a few reasons: - Let’s first dispense with the idea that egress has to be provided without profit/margin in a capitalistic society. There will be profit in it sure and I don’t dismiss the idea that egress pricing is used to keep activities on-…

Most of your points apply equally well to ingress as they do to egress. Yet the cost of one is orders of magnitude less than the other. The only sane explanation for the vast imbalance is vendor lock-in. Everything else is hand-wavy distraction.

Not exactly - they apply to whichever dictates your capacity - be it ingress or egress. Overwhelmingly, capacity for hyperscalers is dictated by egress peaks. Since most non-residential network links are delivered symmetrically, the capacity for the other direction is already there as a by-product.

Also don't underestimate the benefit of simplification - why bill for 2 things separately when one of them is the primary driver of the cost, the comparative cost to supply the other is negligible and is probably more effort to bill for than it's worth.

I'm not dismissing the vendor lock-in aspect, but I don't think it is the only reason at play.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#317

Post by mgaunard »

kiitos wrote: post #314
mgaunard wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no scenario in which cloud is cheaper than bare metal to operate. What's cheaper with cloud is that you don't need upfront costs, but here, you already have the whole infrastructure already there, up and running. Why would you even consider getting rid of it and replacing it with AWS, makes no sense.

It's weird that AWS is just absurdly profitable, then, isn't it? (You're wrong, there are many such scenarios)

It's absurdly profitable precisely because it resells things way above their real price.

People use AWS for the same reason they rent houses: less investment required and you can change things more quickly.

Re: Cloud Egress Costs

#318

Post by kiitos »

mgaunard wrote: post #317
kiitos wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that AWS is just absurdly profitable, then, isn't it? (You're wrong, there are many such scenarios)

It's absurdly profitable precisely because it resells things way above their real price. People use AWS for the same reason they rent houses: less investment required and you can change things more quickly.

> People use AWS for the same reason they rent houses: less investment required and you can change things more quickly.

Yes, exactly. And it's very often the case that these capabilities are more valuable to users than "real price" as you mean. You... understand this, right? That value is measured contextually, not objectively?

Post reply on HN