5 ms·
They are pricing themselves out of the market for traffic-intensive small-fish operations that way though.
by mwfj 11y ago
They are pricing themselves out of the market for traffic-intensive small-fish operations that way though.
- duaneb 11y ago> traffic-intensive small-fish operations Do you have any examples? It seems like it's always been a grow-and-become-profitable-or-die-fast niche.
- g4k 11y agoI run a few websites with video content which leads to 50TB+ per month. The business is profitable, but clearly I would not waste my money on expensive bandwidth.
- simplemath 11y agoGoogle clearly isn't trying to be a porn CDN
- brianwawok 11y agoWhich is funny because through YouTube they have to have the cheapest raw bandwidth in the world. They need two traffic prices.... Fast low latency web traffic for the current 10 cents per GB. Slower more laggy CDN type bandwidth for like 10 cents per TB.
- derefr 11y agoDon't Google have a CDN service? Edit: yes. (https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/load-balancing/http/cdn https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/load-balancing/http/cd...) But it's more of a CloudFlare competitor—a distributed caching reverse-proxy with a 4MB object cachability limit. Costs $0.008/GB, which is cheap compared to a real CDN, but expensive compared to CloudFlare's "free."
- vidarh 11y agoYou miss out something there, I think. The $0.008/GB is for the load balancing. On top of that, you still pay for network egress depending on whether it is internally in GCE or to the internet. Those rates are from $0.20 to $0.08 depending on location. (EDIT: For traffic to the public internet) And those rates are still in crazy territory compared to most alternatives other than Azure and AWS which have equally messed up bandwidth pricing last I checked. I build caching solutions for customers that want to store their data in S3 or Google Cloud Storage, because the bandwidth prices at the big cloud providers are so out of whack that as soon as someone uses lots of egress (few TB a month or more), you can often cut your bandwidth costs by 80%+ or more by getting some dedicated cache servers to put in between your users and your cloud storage. That is after the rental and management costs for those cache servers are included. (the reason for this rather than building storage solutions is that if the above fails you don't lose data. If you trust your abilities or service provider, building a multi-location storage setup with 3+ times redundancy that beats S3 etc. on cost by a large margin is fairly straight forward... But it's often easier to sleep at night if you have other people do the risky stuff..)
- g4k 11y agoFunny guess, but wrong.
- milankragujevic 11y agoIf you have time, I'd recommend purchasing dedicated servers in multiple geographical areas and setting up a custom CDN. It's much cheaper, however much less reliable and much more time intensive to manage and diagnose.
- jorangreef 11y agoWhich DCs would you recommend?
- pyvpx 11y agoyou can try finding good deals in areas you are interested (be certain to ask for "test" IPs, then look up their connectivity via _multiple_ looking glasses) on www.oneprovider.com and then pair that with a robust DNS provider such as NSOne and you've got yourself a pretty decent, bespoke CDN. provided you already know how to do reverse caching proxies and all the other "magic" a CDN needs to work.
- jeremyjh 11y agoWhy do you think they want any of that action? I think their pricing conclusively demonstrates that they don't. Some of those customers are waaaay more trouble than they are worth. Also Google and AWS have "premium" bandwidth - massive redundancy and lots of peering relationships.