7 ms·
Unless my math is wrong, storing 100PB in S3 is something like $2,750,000 per month. Then what happens in 5 years if local storage cost dropped by a factor of
by brianwawok 10y ago
Unless my math is wrong, storing 100PB in S3 is something like $2,750,000 per month.
Then what happens in 5 years if local storage cost dropped by a factor of 10, but S3 cost did not drop?
Big risk, no?
- noahdesu 10y agoI suspect that Amazon will not only be dropping prices, but will be adding new ways to store data with variable pricing (e.g. new tiers as well as reduced redundancy). Not to mention that if you have 100PB in AWS you might get preferential pricing? Google recently increased their spread and now have 4 tiers. There is also an interesting article about Glacier storage and pricing here https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-secret-bdxl/ https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-secret-bd....
- brianwawok 10y agoYou suspect, but you don't know. Most people have suspected that AWS bandwidth costs would go down.. but by and large, they have held steady for 5+ years.
- res0nat0r 10y agoYour standalone 4TB Western Digital hard drive isn't going to give you 99.999999999% durability and replicate your data across multiple datacenters. .03/GB is still insanely cheap IMO.
- brianwawok 10y agoPeople with 100 PB are not using 4 TB Western Digital drives in solo mode. They likely have multiple racks of high performance storage, likely in multiple data centers.
- jrgifford 10y agoIt won't just be S3, it could be stored in Glacier. Considering AWS just cut list price for both of those, this makes sense.
- gamegoblin 10y agoIf somehow a technology is developed to allow local storage cost to drop by a factor of 10, don't you think S3 would make use of the same technology to stay competitive? Cloud storage is a commodity these days. The market saves you in this case -- if one cloud provider didn't use the 10x technology and pass along the 10x savings to the customer, another company would do it and steal all of their customers.
- brianwawok 10y agoI am not sure. Has AWS bandwidth followed the general bandwidth drop that everyone else has seen? If migrating out of AWS is 100 million dollars in bandwidth, not sure you would see a lot of people jump ship to a competitor.. data lockin and all.
- gamegoblin 10y agoIf you are at that scale, it would probably be faster and cheaper to evacuate data on physical media rather than over the network. I believe one can use Snowball to do this: https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/faqs/#export https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/faqs/#export
- adrianN 10y agoYou'd still need to get your data out of Amazon's cloud and into the competitor's. That's neither cheap nor easy.
- gamegoblin 10y agoMy point is that all cloud competitors would necessarily switch for economic reasons. If not to keep you from leaving, then to keep a competitor from capturing all new growth.
- brianwawok 10y agoThats not how it works. People still use IBM mainframes, despite linux being 10x cheaper or more. If you got locked in sometimes you get locked in. Many AWS services have no easy migration path off it.
- PetahNZ 10y agoWell on Glacier its more like $700,000. Considering the cost to store 100PB on site, with redundant disks, geographically distributed, including property leases, power, security, and staffing. $700k might be considerably cheaper.
- UVB-76 10y agoPresumably you get some kind of bulk discount if you're storing 100PB.