5 ms·
keep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS. I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point
by Jack000 9y ago
keep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS.
I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- stephenr 9y agoI assume you mean data transfer rather than bandwidth, but an often overlooked factor nonetheless.
- mabbo 9y agoDefinitely depends on your requirements. AWS can indeed charge a bit for bandwidth. But if you're talking about small static websites, AWS gives you an easy interface, Cloudfront, Route53, etc. It's a very easy way to do some very complex things. You might also look into billing alarms. I've got some simple background jobs that I run on lambda, pulling some files to S3 every hour. It costs me a buck or two a month. But if it ever looks like it might charge me $20, it will alarm and email me.