3 ms·

Edit3: Remountable/movable flexible storage for DO instances is what this gives you and it's kind of pricey. The comparison to B2 is not valid. Leaving the orig

by daveguy 10y ago

Edit3: Remountable/movable flexible storage for DO instances is what this gives you and it's kind of pricey. The comparison to B2 is not valid. Leaving the original mess for posterity. --- TWENTY times (edit) the price as B2 from Backblaze ($.10 vs $.005 per GB per month). It is one of the more expensive ones. But that gets you two things: * (moot See edit 2) SSD! (significant iops improvement) * (moot See edit 2) No transactional costs! (not sure if just between digital ocean instances, but they say none) Improved performance and no transaction costs MAY (edit) be worth it for some applications. Edit1: made it an order of magnitude cheaper in my head after looking at backblaze. It is no where close to the same price. Thank you for the catch, scq! Edit2: and I'm just all kinds of off on this. Block not object storage. Essentially storage you can mount and move between digitalocean instances. That makes no transaction costs moot. You still have to get data out of the instance. Thank you all for quickly catching how backwards this post was! I need coffee.

koolba 10y ago
> Twice the price as B2 from Backblaze ($.010 vs $.005 per GB per month). I believe B2 is an object store, not a block store (like this). The AWS analogy is block store is EBS, object store is S3.
AYBABTME 10y ago
B2 is not block storage tho, it's object storage. Different products. =]
crb 10y ago
B2 is blob storage, like Google Cloud Storage or Amazon S3. What they have launched is SSD block storage, like Google persistent disks or Amazon EBS. (The TechCrunch article also got this confused.)
- askmike 10y ago
  > Amazon EBS. Not more like amazon EFS?
  - boynamedsue 10y ago
    No. EFS is NFS in the cloud which is NAS.
scq 10y ago
Isn't it $0.10/GB/month? That would make it 20x the cost of B2.
- e12e 10y ago
  Note that b2 charges 10x their cost/gb for downloads. Which means it's cheap only if you don't ever read your data back (at least in my use-case which was for ~1tb of backup data - makes it expensive to test your backups...). We'll, "expensive" is obviously a relative term, but why store data and not access it? https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html

by daveguy 10y ago

koolba 10y ago

> Twice the price as B2 from Backblaze ($.010 vs $.005 per GB per month). I believe B2 is an object store, not a block store (like this). The AWS analogy is block store is EBS, object store is S3.

AYBABTME 10y ago

B2 is not block storage tho, it's object storage. Different products. =]

crb 10y ago

B2 is blob storage, like Google Cloud Storage or Amazon S3. What they have launched is SSD block storage, like Google persistent disks or Amazon EBS. (The TechCrunch article also got this confused.)

askmike 10y ago
> Amazon EBS. Not more like amazon EFS?
- boynamedsue 10y ago
  No. EFS is NFS in the cloud which is NAS.

scq 10y ago

Isn't it $0.10/GB/month? That would make it 20x the cost of B2.

e12e 10y ago
Note that b2 charges 10x their cost/gb for downloads. Which means it's cheap only if you don't ever read your data back (at least in my use-case which was for ~1tb of backup data - makes it expensive to test your backups...). We'll, "expensive" is obviously a relative term, but why store data and not access it? https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html