4 ms·

We are looking for alternatives to S3 (for static hosting) since price of data transfer is way too high in all 3 leading cloud services. Any suggestions?

by kumarm 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
teh 10y ago
https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html is a bit cheaper but you'll still pay $50 / terabyte. Using DO just for data might work but then you can't run fast computations on your data.
- amorphid 10y ago
  Clarification. B2 costs $5/TB for storage ($0.005/GB stored * 1000 = $5/TB store), and $50/TB for downloads ($0.05/GB downloaded * 1000 = $50/TB downloaded).
ddorian43 10y ago
https://www.ovh.ie/cloud/storage/object-storage.xml https://www.ovh.ie/cloud/storage/object-storage.xml
vidarh 10y ago
Depends very much on your requirements. If this is data that is rarely changing, and that you have complete copies of, that is exactly what S3 is not good for. In that case: Any dedicated host that's cheap and with reasonable latency (or put a CDN in front). Two copies for failover/ha if you need it. If you pay more than 20% of the advertised rates of AWS bandwidth, you're being robbed. 10% or less is doable. If you need durability guarantees, consider if the cost problem is storage or bandwidth. If the problem is bandwidth costs (in other words: your data set is small and accessed often), store at S3 or Backblazer or similar, and place a server or two at a cheap bandwidth host with Nginx and aggressive caching policies. I've done this for a couple of customers who did not trust other data storage options with their data, and you can rent a server + multiple TB of transfer for a fraction of a the cost of 1TB transfer from S3....
kefka 10y ago
Yes. Look into IPFS, interplanetary file system. You still need machines to serve files. However, the system has some definite advantages: 1. A file/directory is referred to its immutable hash. 2. A request for a specific hash is made to the network, not a single machine. 3. All machines that have that hash can swarm-download, like bittorrent 4. All communication is point-to-point encrypted 5. For backend, you can mount IPFS directly to the file system, via /ipfs and /ipns The gist behind this is allows you to create a backend CDN of whoever is cheapest right now, and then load the images on your webpages (as gateways). It's still alpha, but so far my stability (and others running it) have shown that this system can easily handle large archives (800GB and up).

We are looking for alternatives to S3 (for static hosting) since price of data transfer is way too high in all 3 leading cloud services. Any suggestions?

by kumarm 10y ago

We are looking for alternatives to S3 (for static hosting) since price of data transfer is way too high in all 3 leading cloud services. Any suggestions?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

teh 10y ago

https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html is a bit cheaper but you'll still pay $50 / terabyte. Using DO just for data might work but then you can't run fast computations on your data.

amorphid 10y ago
Clarification. B2 costs $5/TB for storage ($0.005/GB stored * 1000 = $5/TB store), and $50/TB for downloads ($0.05/GB downloaded * 1000 = $50/TB downloaded).

ddorian43 10y ago

https://www.ovh.ie/cloud/storage/object-storage.xml https://www.ovh.ie/cloud/storage/object-storage.xml

vidarh 10y ago

Depends very much on your requirements. If this is data that is rarely changing, and that you have complete copies of, that is exactly what S3 is not good for. In that case: Any dedicated host that's cheap and with reasonable latency (or put a CDN in front). Two copies for failover/ha if you need it. If you pay more than 20% of the advertised rates of AWS bandwidth, you're being robbed. 10% or less is doable. If you need durability guarantees, consider if the cost problem is storage or bandwidth. If the problem is bandwidth costs (in other words: your data set is small and accessed often), store at S3 or Backblazer or similar, and place a server or two at a cheap bandwidth host with Nginx and aggressive caching policies. I've done this for a couple of customers who did not trust other data storage options with their data, and you can rent a server + multiple TB of transfer for a fraction of a the cost of 1TB transfer from S3....

kefka 10y ago

Yes. Look into IPFS, interplanetary file system. You still need machines to serve files. However, the system has some definite advantages: 1. A file/directory is referred to its immutable hash. 2. A request for a specific hash is made to the network, not a single machine. 3. All machines that have that hash can swarm-download, like bittorrent 4. All communication is point-to-point encrypted 5. For backend, you can mount IPFS directly to the file system, via /ipfs and /ipns The gist behind this is allows you to create a backend CDN of whoever is cheapest right now, and then load the images on your webpages (as gateways). It's still alpha, but so far my stability (and others running it) have shown that this system can easily handle large archives (800GB and up).