3 ms·
One use case: reducing ongoing bandwidth costs. S3 bandwidth is pretty expensive. Even Akamai will give you less expensive bandwidth and their target market is
by true_religion 11y ago
One use case: reducing ongoing bandwidth costs.
S3 bandwidth is pretty expensive. Even Akamai will give you less expensive bandwidth and their target market is enterprise media companies (e.g. ESPN) with deep pockets.
For someone with bandwidth costs issues who wants to use S3 as storage, they can put Varnish in front of it and serve the data with less expense.
What do you lose out on? HTTP/2, SSL, etc. unless you put another HTTP server in front of varnish.
- andrewguenther 11y agoIf you're comparing to Akamai, then shouldn't your data be in a CDN rather than S3?
- true_religion 11y agoNot necessarily. I'm comparing bandwidth costs. Amazon S3 out-going bandwidth is an order of magnitude more expensive than some of its competitors (OVH for example), and, at least, 2x the price of Dreamhost's OpenStack solution (which includes a CDN for outgoing bandwidth). Amazon S3 is essentially more expensive than a CDN for outgoing bandwidth even though it has only one PoP by default. That's surprising since the typical case was that the CDN would be more expensive, and increasing the # of PoP you used in CDN would make it more expensive (e.g. there's a huge jump in pricing if you use Asia/Australia nodes).