4 ms·

Sorry, should've specifically mentioned them. Workers KV is also $5/million writes and $0.50/million reads[1] (more expensive than S3 which is $0.40/million re

by kondro 5y ago

Sorry, should've specifically mentioned them. Workers KV is also $5/million writes and $0.50/million reads[1] (more expensive than S3 which is $0.40/million reads) and often DynamoDB (which is $1.25/million 1KB writes and $0.25/million reads scaling down to 1/7th that if you use provisioned instead of on-demand). Workers KV is also eventually-consistent with no guarantee of read-after-write, which is a pretty big limitation compared to alternatives (S3 even has immediately-consistent list operations now after write). Durable Objects Storage is $1/million writes at 4KB and $0.20/million reads[2], which is pretty good. But you can also only access it via a Durable Object which limits its usage (especially as neither Durable Objects or its storage are in a production state with final pricing yet) and means you need to also pay for the Durable Object runtime on top fo the Storage pricing whenever you want to access that data. [1] https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/platform/pricing#paid-plan-1 https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/platform/pricing#p... [2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/durable-objects-open-beta/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/durable-objects-open-beta/

londons_explore 5y ago
> But you can also only access it via a Durable Object which limits its usage Presumably with not-a-lot of code you could write a Durable Object to have an S3 compatible API...
- kondro 5y ago
  It wasn't the code that was the issue (and you probably wouldn't want an S3 compatible API). It's that on top of the Durable Store pricing, you need to pay for the $0.15/million requests + $12.50/million GB-sec processing + $0.09/GB data transfer. Given the point of R2, the fact there's $0.045/GB ingress + egress data transfer (which has been recently reduced from $0.09) when using Durable Objects. Given the original comment is basically about egress being too expensive therefore R2 is offering to for free, Durable Objects' Store isn't a particularly good alternative to just using S3 or DynamoDB unless you're already using Workers/Durable Objects.
qeternity 5y ago
Out of curiosity what is your use case? What is S3 latency compared to Dynamo?
- kondro 5y ago
  Pretty similar really. Latency is much less important than throughput for all of my use-cases.

by kondro 5y ago

londons_explore 5y ago

> But you can also only access it via a Durable Object which limits its usage Presumably with not-a-lot of code you could write a Durable Object to have an S3 compatible API...

kondro 5y ago
It wasn't the code that was the issue (and you probably wouldn't want an S3 compatible API). It's that on top of the Durable Store pricing, you need to pay for the $0.15/million requests + $12.50/million GB-sec processing + $0.09/GB data transfer. Given the point of R2, the fact there's $0.045/GB ingress + egress data transfer (which has been recently reduced from $0.09) when using Durable Objects. Given the original comment is basically about egress being too expensive therefore R2 is offering to for free, Durable Objects' Store isn't a particularly good alternative to just using S3 or DynamoDB unless you're already using Workers/Durable Objects.

qeternity 5y ago

Out of curiosity what is your use case? What is S3 latency compared to Dynamo?

kondro 5y ago
Pretty similar really. Latency is much less important than throughput for all of my use-cases.