6 ms·
Wow, ~700 TB/mo? That does sound like a lot. What kind of site would serve that volume of traffic and not have 56k for operating expenses? I mean, I can think
by saganus 11y ago
Wow, ~700 TB/mo? That does sound like a lot.
What kind of site would serve that volume of traffic and not have 56k for operating expenses? I mean, I can think of a few examples like Wikipedia maybe, since they are non-commercial and such, but for a commercial business? Maybe 4chan moves that much without a lot of revenue I would think, or maybe... imgur? but not really sure, I mean, it would seem like they could get that amount easily via ads alone.
What was the use case here?
Also, I think that 56k for traffic alone kind of depends on context. I mean, how much does Netflix pay for serving their volume of traffic?
What I'm saying is, isn't 700 TB a month something that would probably be very expensive no matter the context? Just storing 700TB would cost a lot, no?
I'm really curious about your use case here.
- virtuallynathan 11y ago700TB/mo is about 2Gbps - on the open market that should be under $1000/mo. Netflix's total cost is probably below $0.25/Mbps. $56,000/mo would get you over 100Gbps of committed capacity from any major provider (or a mix).
- pyre 11y ago> 700TB/mo is about 2Gbps - on the open market that should be under $1000/mo Is that a fixed-cost sustained pipe though? I was under the impression that (at least at the backbone level) those contracts got more costly the closer to full that your pipe was.
- virtuallynathan 11y agoYes, $1000/mo would get you a 2Gbps commit on a 10Gbps pipe. If you used over 2Gbps (95%ile) for the month, you would pay probably $0.60/Mbps for that excess ($0.10 over the commit price). Some providers dont charge more than the commit price for overage traffic.
- saganus 11y agoInteresting data. Thanks! It's obvious that I had no idea about costs. I honestly thought it would be much more expensive.
- phoboslab 11y agoImage hosting community site - notably without shady popup/layer/scam ads, which probably was the reason for the relatively small income. For a two person team that only worked part time on it, it still made good money. The total dataset was just about 3TB, so storing it was not an issue.
- saganus 11y agoI see. It does make sense. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity :)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- alainv 11y agoWhy is it "not have 56k for operating expenses"? Something that can be had for $2k is not something a healthy business spends $56k on. You should be able to find a better use for those $650k that year.
- superuser2 11y agoThe engineer time to reimplement the other AWS services you're using may be substantially more than the $54k difference in bandwidth costs.
- kijin 11y agoDepends on what they're using AWS for. OP seems to be running a simple and straightforward setup that just happens to use a lot of bandwidth. It doesn't take five full-time engineers to maintain a handful of LEMP servers.
- qaq 11y agoHmm very unlikely. Thats 5 full time people.
- eru 11y agoMore like 2 or 3 if you include overheads. Depends on location, of course.
- vidarh 11y agoNothing prevents you from mixing and matching there are actually AWS services you can't find cheaper equivalents to elsewhere. My experience is that those of my consulting clients that want to migrate off AWS rarely have any problems replacing it. The cost savings usually pay back any development costs and the overall migration effort in 2-3 months at most.
- misiek08 11y agoIf there will be 2 such companies, for that 108k I can wrote services backend that will be comptabile with AWS, so after a year you can transparently switch to that system on your bare metal and sell it to have your services for free. I still didn't make my own "clone", because I can't afford machines to start selling it.
- zifnab06 11y ago1TB/mo is roughly a constant 3mbit/s. So an estimated 2.1gbit/s. I recently had a 1gbit line from he.net quoted at $500 in Seattle.