5 ms·
But you have to store things in larger archives or the per-object overhead hurts your pricing. When Glacier first came out I really wanted to use it, but it had
by dexterdog 11y ago
But you have to store things in larger archives or the per-object overhead hurts your pricing. When Glacier first came out I really wanted to use it, but it had so much complexity over just treating it like an object store that I didn't use it. Then add the fact that S3 Standard kept coming down in price and Glacier just stood still (thus the name).
- Dylan16807 11y agoNot that large. 25MB objects will cost you $.002 per GB to transfer, much lower than the storage and bandwidth costs. 5-10MB objects are perfectly feasible at low cost.
- georgeott 11y agoI'm currently storing my entire photo collection of about 50GB and ~20,000 photos. It cost me about $3 to upload the entire library. I pay around 50 cents a month for storage. YMMV, but I'm very happy with it.