3 ms·
0.005 GB is a competitive price until you bake in the total cost of ownership. In this case, it still makes better sense for us to use Google's Cloud Storage o
by blantonl 11y ago
0.005 GB is a competitive price until you bake in the total cost of ownership. In this case, it still makes better sense for us to use Google's Cloud Storage offerings for our 100TB of mp3 file storage since sending all those files results in outgoing bandwidth charges from our infrastructure.
Staying in the same cloud "ecosystem" (Google or AWS) allows for free incoming bandwidth and free bandwidth when transitioning between services (EC2 to S3 / Google Cloud Server / Cloud Storage). An important consideration.
- rob-olmos 11y agoCan you share some info on how backups are handled for 100TB of Google Cloud Storage? (I'm thinking more like malicious actor intentional deleting kind of threat, not the lack of durability)
- oliwarner 11y agoSurely you have an off-cloud backup of all this though. Just copy that onto 10 10TB disks and post those off to Backblaze for upload (not sure if they actually do this yet). Most companies charge a small handling fee but it's fast.
- budmang 11y agoIt's an excellent point. Everyone has to look at their particular use case. If your bandwidth between compute/storage is very high, and the amount you store is very little...staying inside of a provider that offers compute & storage makes sense. If your cost of storage is high on a relative basis, B2 may be a cost efficient alternative. Gleb from Backblaze