4 ms·
good to know of a new kid in the block. when comparing prices, which is dramatically lower than the competitors, I wonder if .0039 cents per gigabyte is basical
by zod50 9y ago
good to know of a new kid in the block. when comparing prices, which is dramatically lower than the competitors, I wonder if .0039 cents per gigabyte is basically just the storage cost and not the cost of w/r/d data over a period of time? one thing that's common among aws, azure, and google cloud is they make their money by charging customers for egress of data. so with this low price Wasabi certainly seems like a good place for archival, but not necessarily primary storage which might do a lot of roundtrips throughout the day.
- QuinnyPig 9y agoBandwidth is going to be a major cost driver; this is more a marketing fluff piece than a product offering. No numbers I can find about data transfer, lifecycle operations, multi-region approaches, data durability, or any of the things that AWS handles for us. I'm highly skeptical for two reasons. The first is that this stuff is hard, and AWS hasn't been particularly gouging people with their pricing model for storage. The second is looking at the historic on-prem storage market. Generally if you didn't go with the top 3-5 storage vendors, you could expect your vendor to get acquired by one of them, and then immediately EOL whatever you had bought from them, as a few of their features were integrated into the acquirer's offering. We'll see how it goes, but storage is one of those areas where I'm very slow to adopt new technologies or vendors; mistakes here generally show up catastrophically.