Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I can't speak about S3 but we're using heavily GCS (google cloud storage) and haven't experienced any problems. From time to time we can see a slowdown, but never seen an outage.

I also looked at B2 [0] once or twice. The price is great, but the traffic cost (egress from GCE) renders it unusable for us.

[0] https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html



$0.12/GB egress for GCS is even higher than S3, though. :/


Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.

There are actually a few options in egress land for us if cost is your primary concern.

If you're doing serving over http(s), you should probably be using Cloud CDN with your bucket [1] or put one of our partners like Cloudflare or Fastly with CDN Interconnect [2]. Both of these get you closer to $.04-$.08/GB depending on src/dest.

If not, and you don't care that we have a global backbone, you can get a more AWS-like network with our Standard Tier [3] (curiously with pricing squirreled away at [4], I'll file a bug). The packets will hop off our network in a hot potato / asap fashion, so you're not riding our backbone as much.

[1] http://cloud.google.com/cdn

[2] https://cloud.google.com/interconnect/docs/how-to/cdn-interc...

[3] https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/

[4] https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/pricing#standard_tier...


I know about Standard Tier, though it had slipped my mind--thanks for pointing it out.

It's still way too expensive. And Cloud CDN isn't an appropriate tool for my use case. I really do just need a bunch of egress from a single location that isn't insanely expensive. $0.085/GB is in that insanely-expensive tier, for me.


Understood. Out of curiosity, how much egress are you doing? (We, and other providers, need this feedback to prioritize more bulk egress solutions)


Don't know yet! But I expect to see between 100x and 1000x on a per-megabyte basis. Not evenly distributed across objects (objects between 40MB and 150MB), but as a rough estimate.

I'd be happy to talk further via email; it's not secret, just not public.


Why would this matter?

Your bandwidth pricing is a joke. Yes, you got a nice network and yes you pay premiums to get transit of providers that are "hard to work with". And yes, you have dark fiber between your locations, which is costing a lot of money, but even considering those facts you are still charging at least 10x as much as your bandwidth should cost your customers.

How have you even calculated those prices? "Let's look at AWS and make it even more expensive"?


GCS's prices are lower than AWS's for single-region egress, though. Check 'boulos's link.

Not by enough, but they are.


The bandwidth charges are hefty if you're moving a lot of bits, but I wouldn't use anything other than S3 or GCS probably -- the other guys just don't have a track record of reliability yet.

But, you can build a poor-man's CDN -- varnish caches on DO/Linode/whatever where you get multiple terabytes of bandwidth for a small VM. So, you use the best object storage provider, but move most of the bits cheaply using Varnish + Route53 geo-dns.


That's definitely on the table. Time-consuming, though.


It's more to manage for sure, but something that can be built in a day or three.


Building is arguably the easy part. Managing and supporting is a different story.


Exactly - TCO is the core problem.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: