Google Storage Now Available To Developers
code.google.com
Google Storage Now Available To Developers
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#2No more invites required to use, but at first glance it appears to be more expensive than S3.
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#3No more invites required to use, but at first glance it appears to be more expensive than S3.
Cost of storing data:
S3: $0.140 per GB (at the most expensive rate) vs. Google: $0.17 per GB (at their only listed rate)
The rest seems to be the same though.
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#4Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#5No more invites required to use, but at first glance it appears to be more expensive than S3.
Cost of storing data: S3: $0.140 per GB (at the most expensive rate) vs. Google: $0.17 per GB (at their only listed rate) The rest seems to be the same though.
Hmm, that additional zero at the end for S3's price threw me off for a a few secs :)
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#6No more invites required to use, but at first glance it appears to be more expensive than S3.
Google's pricing is pretty close to Amazon's for low-end users, but high-end users will still find S3 to be much cheaper. I was hoping Google would be the competitor that would pressure Amazon to reduce the cost of S3. S3's prices have been pretty constant over the last few years even though I would assume that Amazon's expenses have decreased due to lower storage and hardware costs.
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#75 years, 1 month and 28 days after S3 is publicly launched. It is just a reminder that the threat by incumbents to startups is hardly worth worrying about.
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#8No more invites required to use, but at first glance it appears to be more expensive than S3.
Cost of storing data: S3: $0.140 per GB (at the most expensive rate) vs. Google: $0.17 per GB (at their only listed rate) The rest seems to be the same though.
Fascinating, so a 1TB sata drive is $70 [1] these days and that equates to about 7 cents per GB, if you made three copies to insure your backups had a 'good' copy that would be 21 cents/gB so its cheaper than using your own hard drives.
The whole 'we've decided to kill that product, you've got 30 days to get your stuff back' and the 'we lost a switch or something and we'll be back online day after tomorrow' kinds of things are still concerns of course.
I've always been impressed at the prices Amazon could charge for S3 and keep it a going concern. I'd love to see the breakout on that revenue but I'm sure that isn't going to happen any time soon.
[1] http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE...
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#9It's really nice to see that boto (python AWS library) supports S3 and Google Storage side-by-side. Being able to pick and choose providers behind the same API is how the cloud should be.
Re: Google Storage Now Available To Developers
#10A compelling reason for our use case to switch from S3 is their support for lots of buckets coupled with CNAME support:
http://code.google.com/apis/storage/docs/reference-uris.html
Due to Amazon's limitation of 100 buckets per account and the coupling between bucket name and CNAME, hosting files for our clients and supporting custom CNAMEs has not been possible for us. If we were to move to Google Storage, it would be.