5 ms·
S3 in itself is tangential to privacy abuses; you can (and probably should) use it to store encrypted data only, if it's the kind of data you'd prefer not to be
by dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
S3 in itself is tangential to privacy abuses; you can (and probably should) use it to store encrypted data only, if it's the kind of data you'd prefer not to be accessed by someone else. But most people don't use it with encryption as it's less convenient.
The real argument against S3 though is its price. For any but most trivial amounts of data it's terribly expensive and I use it only as internal storage for other AWS services.
- bradleyankrom 7y agoI’ve found the overall price to be quite reasonable. We have about 10TB stored across maybe 40M objects - the biggest cost is for PUTs, but even those requests + storage keeps the bill around $150US. At the enterprise level, that’s a negligible cost. YMMV, of course.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y agoFor these kinds of amounts you could use the cheapest of Hetzner SX line and save half of that. But real savings start over 100 TB.
- pnutjam 7y agoEspecially when you want to get the data out, B3 (from backblaze) has a much better cost structure.