4 ms·
(*) for a particular use case. The example is 200GB storage with 2000GB data transfer (out) every month. That's a LOT of data going out every month, so I am g
by cyberferret 9y ago
(*) for a particular use case.
The example is 200GB storage with 2000GB data transfer (out) every month. That's a LOT of data going out every month, so I am guessing the scenario is if you are hosting a photo library and lots of people are downloading every month.
If however you are just using the service as an online storage to hold <100GB of data as backup (i.e. mainly only transfer in), then S3 turns out way cheaper than DO.
Not knocking either service - I actually use both, for different use cases.
- Blackstone4 9y agoWhen you say way cheaper what do you mean? Like savings of ~$5-10 on a spend of $10-20? Or is it material? Like $50
- cyberferret 9y agoWell, DO is a minimum of $5 per month (up to 250GB IIRC). 100GB on S3 with just uploads during the month will run under $2.
- some_account 9y agoI think it would be good if people didn't always pick these services based on price, since that's how you end up with one monopoly service and no alternatives. Support alternatives even if they are a bit more expensive.
- Blackstone4 9y agoAgreed. The price difference in a lower usage case is not meaningful. I would choose based on ease of use, reliability and functionality. The main thing stopping me from using Digital Ocean is AWS RDS which is amazing. If they could bring out a similar solution with backups and MySQL and PostgreSQL, that would be amazing. :) I could then run my apps in docker.
- cyberferret 9y agoWell, I actually agree with you. In my first post above my reply, I did say that I actually use both services based on my use cases. Both excellent, and work well (Oh, and I also use the Minio open source solution for one particular project too). Horses for courses.
- ksec 9y agoSo $5 is way cheaper? if you need any of those data down the line, transferring out, any savings you have with AWS in the past year or years are going to be wiped out.
- tobias3 9y agoPlus the SLA is different. It probably should be compared to at least AWS S3 reduced redundancy storage.
- qaq 9y agoright and what are the penalties when AWS breaks SLA?
- arghwhat 9y agoI am not sure I find your argument particularly valid. Yes, AWS S3 is cheaper if you have no egress traffic, and the monthly storage cost falls below $5, which is a minimum price for DO. This scenario is very much a corner case. If you have egress traffic, or more than $5 worth of storage, then DO runs ahead quite fast. I'm slightly disappointed that Backblaze B2 was not on the list, though.
- brightball 9y agoIt's difficult to use with speculative numbers too. I recently compared Imgix and Cloudinary for use in front of an origin server and the numbers that we projected with made Imgix look 3x more expensive. When we put it against real usage, Imgix was actually 1/4 the price of Cloudinary. It's difficult, sometimes, to guess at numbers that may or may not play to a specific service strength. A lot of times there's something hidden in the details that you're missing as well. In our case, we didn't notice that Cloudinary didn't have an overage rate so if you go over any of the capped limits on a particular plan you have to move up to the next plan level. It was a very unpleasant surprise. We didn't notice it to compare because it simply...didn't appear anywhere.
- e12e 9y agoWithout looking at the numbers in the article, I think the use case of storing data you never access is more of an edge-case? Sure a meager 10x down to up ratio (100gb up/month - distribute to 10 locations / people) will be very unfavourable to Amazon. But what's the use-case for uploading 100 gb a month, and then... Not deleting it (keep paying for storage) and not accessing it?