3 ms·
In my experience B2 Cloud hosting is at least a magnitude slower for larger files and 2-5x slower for smaller files. If you need to do lots of look ups, forget
by intev 5y ago
In my experience B2 Cloud hosting is at least a magnitude slower for larger files and 2-5x slower for smaller files. If you need to do lots of look ups, forget about it. I'm mostly using it as a sort of archival system. Storing data that doesn't need to get there quickly. It's a very small use case. Even for larger server backups, its way too slow. Oh also they don't allow you to change regions, or have region specific buckets. You are locked into it with your account creation.
Their prices are so low that their real price is the $ cost and this slowness. So I use a mix of B2 and S3 depending on the use case.
- bradknowles 5y agoHave you tried S3 with auto tiered storage? Only the most recent stuff lives on fast media, the older stuff gets auto migrated to media that has much better cost/byte ratios, including all the way to Deep Glacier storage if that’s what you want. I would be very curious to see what the TCO is of a well-configured Backblaze B2 storage solution is, compared to a well-configured S3 auto-tier solution. And then also compare relative performance, too.