17 ms·
Will Cloudflare R2 Win Customers from Amazon S3?
- mikesabbagh 5y agowhen they say free egress, it means there is a rate limit probably. How many GB max can you transfer in 1 day at 10Mbits/s. You have to set a limit as your shared hardware has limits
- jeffparsons 5y agoHow does Cloudflare's billing work? Can I set a hard cap, or is it like AWS where if I'm not careful I could end up with extreme bill shock? After some bad experiences and reading about other people's bad experiences, I won't use AWS anymore for anything that's not yet big enough to have expensive lawyers and people monitoring expenses daily. So I'm very interested to know how Cloudflare compares on this front.
- bserge 5y agoWill bigcorp 1 win against Megacorp 2? Find out in the next episode! Just co-locate your stuff, please.
- xwdv 5y ago> Just co-locate your stuff, please. No thanks, too time consuming and too many liabilities.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ehutch79 5y agoOnly if they start onboarding people. I'm pretty sure R2 is what I was looking for to solve a specific problem.
- mmastrac 5y agoI'm glad the article pointed out Q1 as the next opportunity
- brian_herman 5y agoWhat about P0?
- nixarn 5y agoAnd O-1
- austinpena 5y agoI don't think that goes far enough. So I made this https://object-storage-name-generator.com https://object-storage-name-generator.com
- jerf 5y agoReminds me of this old Dilbert cartoon: https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-12-12 https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-12-12 "I would have synergized harder, but I got tired of clicking the button!"
- austinpena 5y agoHaha! I need to work on my Start-Up slang if a Dilbert beat me to the punch by ~23 years
- NicoJuicy 5y agoRemoving egress is awesome > Except you can put R2 in front of S3 and set it to "slurp" mode. That way as objects are requested through the normal course of use they'll be stored in R2. You can then keep S3 as a backup, or delete the objects that have moved over. Being a proxy is cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28703464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28703464 Note: I think it's pretty obvious that they are very pro AWS. I saw a lot of positive comments and very few negative comments here. Reading the blog post makes it look like it was the inverse.
- sillysaurusx 5y agoPersonally I find Backblaze B2 more compelling. ... Ok, after writing that, I realized that I should probably look up R2's offering first. And then my jaw hit the floor at "free egress bandwidth". Free egress bandwidth? Yes please. I will instantly convert. Then I was worried about price per GB. $0.015/GB is incredibly competitive. Good lord, where do I get early access to this thing? I'd transition all our infra today.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- forty 5y agoWe will see in practice how it is. As the article suggested, there are often caveats to "unlimited" and honestly I don't even think they have written unlimited anywhere :)
- aclelland 5y agoI think that when CF say unlimited bandwidth they really mean it. I manage a domain on the business level plan for a domain and I pushed over 1PB through it in January. Not a single complaint from CF and no sales calls pushing enterprise tier. They haven't clarified their file operations costs yet though. That could get pricy but will more than likely be cancelled out by the egress savings for most use cases.
- Aea 5y agoNot saying your experience isn't true, but I've heard horror stories of accounts being disabled for using too much "non-HTML" bandwidth, even on business level ($200/month) accounts (at the single digit TB level). The limits seem to be arbitrary and ill defined. CF may be great technically, but I personally wouldn't use them without an enterprise agreement in place. Bandwidth should be cheap, but cheap does not equal free. Unless I had an enterprise agreement in place I'd rather work with a vendor that has a well defined usage-based pricing. I have a low appetite for risk, and usage-based pricing aligns incentives properly IMHO.
- res0nat0r 5y agoThe lower egress fees are super nice, but until someone can beat the Glacier Deep Archive pricing @ $0.00099 per GB I'm going to keep using that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- NicoJuicy 5y agoThat's not for data you Will actually use. You are only including one of the many cysts ( egress and retrieval) + it's really slow. Cloudflare brings R2 to the edge.
- smorgusofborg 5y agoIntegration is an interesting problem though. With Scaleway's c14 cold storage, I felt the reasonable choices were use their S3 services for more or don't use their S3 oriented archive service at all. Moving everything around to different S3 services for different purposes seems like something I don't want to sign up for.
- NicoJuicy 5y agoBut it is interesting if you want to use different services of different clouds to pick the best ones for their use-case. Egress is the cost that prevents that.
- unethical_ban 5y ago"Archive" Archive is great for archiving. S3 standard tier is not for archiving.
- res0nat0r 5y agoMy #1 concern is total monthly cost to store data, that's it.
- joemaller1 5y agoYes. The instant I get access. This plus CloudFlare Workers might replace quite a few AWS S3/Lambda projects.
- jen20 5y agoGiven the pricing, and the ability to fault in storage from S3 in any case, almost certainly "yes" is the answer to the headline, in stunning contradiction to Betteridge's law!
- maxpert 5y agoHow is Cloudflare gonna coup up the price? These numbers are too good to be true (Sorry I am naive in how egress pricing works).
- toomuchtodo 5y agoBandwidth is very cheap [1], cloud providers gouge. Cloudflare is using this product to disrupt other cloud providers and pull business from them. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682237
- foobiekr 5y agoYes basically. In networking everybody except for people living on a CSP buy bandwith/ports not bits moved. AWS egress is fabulously profitable specifically because they’re ripping you off vs even a very expensive colo.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 5y agoThey charge three times the cost for storage compared to B2 etc. Egress bandwidth in a datacenter costs around $7/TB for you or me, probably far less for a company like Cloudflare that's built around handling huge traffic volumes. Similarly they can use slow storage for most files and use their existing caching solutions for storing frequently accessed files. They'll probably lose some money on customers who use lots of bandwidth, and make lots of money on everyone else.
- capableweb 5y ago> Egress bandwidth in a datacenter costs around $7/TB for you or me, probably far less for a company like Cloudflare that's built around handling huge traffic volumes. Funny thing, paying for egress bandwidth is not something you do if you handle your own peering and other internet infrastructure. Paying for bandwidth is something that the cloud providers came up with to add further margin. So they likely pay $0/TB for that bandwidth.
- cloudfalcon 5y agoHi, I'm LV, I wrote this post. I co-founded Taloflow to make choosing cloud vendors transparent and easy. I'm curious to hear what factors HN readers think I missed and if you think Cloudflare R2 will be a threat in the cloud object storage market place.
- mlyle 5y agoWhat do you think of the above comment which indicates you overcounted B2's costs by a factor of 10,000?
- cloudfalcon 5y agoThey are right. We addressed the comment and fixed the article.
- Thaxll 5y agoI don't see excatly how the r2 model will be viable, you basically have a free CDN. I don't see that staying that way.
- DisjointedHunt 5y agoYou pay for storage. Only , not as much as what AWS charges. Cloudflare has a business model where they can basically handle any network load you throw at them. They are monetizing their advantage here by allowing you to make full use of their network as long as you make use of their paid storage as well. The margins in the cloud business and AWS especially are breathtakingly large and yet, considered affordable by enterprises so far because the alternative of standing up your own compute and networking capacity is not just significantly expensive, there just isn’t enough talent available in the world to go around for every enterprise to have a decently staffed team doing so.
- Thaxll 5y agoCloudflare still has to pay for transit, so I don't see how hosting a 1GB video being served multi TB per month will work for them.
- mcintyre1994 5y agoCloudflare have a great blog post about this: https://blog.cloudflare.com/aws-egregious-egress/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/aws-egregious-egress/ The short answer is that at AWS/Cloudflare scale you’re paying a fixed cost for networking capacity, not for transit per byte. So their cost doesn’t scale anywhere near the way AWS egress costs do, and if they want it can just be free.
- DisjointedHunt 5y agoYup, precisely. They buy “capacity” ie the equivalent of making an infrastructure investment. AWS does the same. Now, AWS chooses to price their network usage as a utility, ie, you pay per unit of data transmitted. This is ridiculous for enterprise scale. Cloudflare uses their purchased capacity as a strategic differentiator by basically letting you use as much as you want because they have so much purchased, you wouldn’t ever make a dent. Any services behind this differentiator are what they can charge for. Like I said above, the margins in cloud are ridiculously high. This is why these companies are amongst the few in the world valued over a Trillion dollars. Throw in an upstart who has the strategic advantage and technical competence that Cloudflare has and boy, do we have a winner . The next few years will be very interesting.
- tiffanyh 5y agoSeems like a person could create an unbelieving cheap podcast hosting business (Simplecast, Transistor.fm, etc) on the back of R2. For those unaware, the primary infrastructure cost of these businesses is serving up mp3. Much like what YouTube does for video.
- corobo 5y agoI'm aiming to do exactly that with hosted.fm as it happens :) Using B2 and CF workers to keep costs low currently but if R2 is as good as it sounds I have no reason to write any overages billing code. Lovely!
- klaaz0r 5y agoExactly this! with https://reason.fm https://reason.fm I am going to try and see if I can migrate our services to R2, right now it's pretty doable with S3 or GCloud storage at scale but we can definitely get our costs down with R2!
- marcc 5y agoIMO, the best feature Cloudflare added to R2 was the automatic migration. This makes sense for a CDN to offer, but if R2 works, this makes it pretty simple to migrate. "After specifying an existing storage bucket, R2 will serve requests for objects from the existing bucket," I've Beene evaluating R2, but this migration path makes it dead simple to use. I just point my code to read/write from/to R2 instead of S3, and I'll get egress fees from AWS during the migration, but then that's it?
- milesward 5y agoinsert doubt
- SteveNuts 5y agoWhat part is OP missing?
- mrweasel 5y agoMaybe the point is that just having the S3 and CDN isn’t enough to move customers. If you’re using AWS, S3 (and Cloudfront) it will just be a tiny part of your infrastructure, why would you move that out of AWS and lose the integration coming from having everything in AWS?
- acdha 5y agoIt might be only part of your infrastructure but on many projects it’s a significant fraction of your total expenditure and storage egress is one of the things limiting use of external services. Having a cheap data access option makes it easy to reconsider those choices when you don’t have to factor egress into the cost of trying an alternative.
- tuananh 5y ago> Double paying for storage is still going to be cheaper than egress fees overall. because of this?
- 5y ago
- dmw_ng 5y agoWhere are all the Backblaze marketing folk? :) B2 has an offer at present where they will eat the cost of a one-time S3 egress in exchange for a 1 year storage commitment. This offer is much more transparent, although I do still admire CloudFlare's strategy here.
- corford 5y agoEchoing this. We've just made use of that very offer to shift >2billion objects (120TB) from S3 to B2. Migration took over a month but we weren't billed for any of it and are very happy so far.
- dmw_ng 5y agoJust curious, were you optimising for storage or serving costs, and were the expected savings realized? I've been itching to try live serving out of B2, but its latency jumps around quite a lot, and the hot cache layer does not stream large (>100MB) objects during first fetch, so it's not without some downsides.
- corford 5y agoThe objects we moved to B2 are essentially archive material and not expected to be regularly accessed, so it was purely a cost optimisation. We'll be adding another ~50TB per year to B2 so we expect the long term savings to be significant versus leaving these objects in S3. Because of the object count (and per object size), moving them to Glacier was not an option.
- ignoramous 5y agoI've commented elsewhere, and I'll comment here again: Cloudflare R2 is really a re-packaging / re-positioning of how most customers were using Cloudflare's CDN in the first place: As a low-cost content delivery network. As a small tech shop, we front S3 with Cloudflare (not CloudFront, because it's relatively expensive) for binary downloads, and pay single digit $ to AWS and $0 to Cloudflare. If we were pushing blobs through S3 + accelerated buckets; or S3 + CloudFront; or S3 + transfer-acceleration, our AWS bill would have been 3x / 5x. Relying on Cloudflare to do tiered-caching / transfer-acceleration afforded by tight integration between its CDN and R2 would lead us to drop S3 altogether for our workloads. We've also experimented using Workers KV as a blob store (it has a cap of 25MB per key; costs $5 per million writes, $0.5 per million reads; $5 per 10GB of storage; zero egress fee) and its pricing comes out cheaper than S3. We'd have moved to KV already if R2 hadn't been announced. Now, we think it is prudent to bide our time till R2 goes public. But: we are a rather tiny tech shop and agonize over bill items like egress; most enterprises worry more about data security, compliance, and integration with big-data tools (like EMR, Athena, Firehose, RedShift etc). So, I am not sure if there'd be an exodus off-the-bat (at least not until Cloudflare has equivalent integrations / services in-place [0]). Though, I can see why companies like smugmug (who have been using S3 since 2006!) may move. The killer here is, R2 will sweep away dev shops at the low-end of the market. If anyone's starting a bootstrapped SaaS company, not only does Cloudflare becomes the place for them to prototype a MVP (as opposed to AWS/Azure/GCP) but also an integration point for their offerings (consider: a Tableau competitor + R2) [1]. As noted by Ben Thompson a few days ago, there's little AWS can do despite knowing what's in store, other than cannibalize their own business (which they're not afraid to do!) [2]. We are entering uncharted waters here: Two companies fully drowning in HBS credos going after each other. Wonder what Clayton Christensen would have thought of that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_contagion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_contagion [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network [2] https://stratechery.com/2021/cloudflares-disruption/ https://stratechery.com/2021/cloudflares-disruption/
- breakingcups 5y agoA big difference is that it was really scary to run up against their non-HTML content policy, which I presume isn't the case with this new object storage.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y agoI think AWS backed themselves into a corner with their extremely high egress charges. I would wager that a pretty considerable amount of their revenue is from egress, so if they have to reduce egress pricing, it will take a pretty big chunk of their revenue. Of course, I could be completely wrong. I would certainly welcome a correction.
- bethecloud 5y agoVery nice to see the economical comparison include decentralized storage providers like Storj DCS
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- heipei 5y agoSlight miscalculation which should have been obvious: "For example, Backblaze B2’s free operations threshold is capped at 2,500 a day, and if R2 simply let you make a GetObject request every second of every day, that would be something like 86,400 FREE daily Gets, which would cost ~$335 daily on B2 or $122,000 a year." Backblaze B2 Class B operations are priced at $0.004 per 10k operations which the author did not take into account, so the calculation above is off by a factor of 10,000. The real cost for 1 GET per second for a whole year on Backblaze B2 is $12.59.
- cloudfalcon 5y agoYou're right. This is a silly mistake on my part in rushing out this piece. I apologize. Thanks for pointing this out -I've since taken out the paragraph.
- _zoltan_ 5y agowhy rush a piece?
- dboreham 5y agoMore clicks?
- cloudfalcon 5y agoCloudflare R2 is topical right now - that was the motivation. Not saying it was the right strategy to do so (clearly not given the mistake).
- _hilro 5y agoDid you just silently edit out that part and not put some text noting your previous mistake? You even have a section of the article called "Hacker News Comment Responses"! Then you failed to mention the OP comment you're replying to: That is very bad form and untrustworthy behaviour.
- bovermyer 5y agoI'm surprised no one has mentioned Digital Ocean Spaces. The pricing is much simpler, even if it's more expensive for some scenarios.
- jeffalo 5y agoThe name Cloudflare R2 is incredible. The letter before S is R. The number before 3 is 2.
- tanbyte 5y agoWon't be surprised if AWS counters this sooner or later in terms of reducing egress fee, but the fact that S3 is core to AWS's eco system and ties in well, is another blocker for migration
- tlarkworthy 5y agoIt's missing IAM conditional policies so it's a no for me.
- xwdv 5y agoAt our company we’re ready to convert to R2, and this will probably be the foot in the door to using other cloudflare services.
- rmason 5y agoWhat I want to see is Cloudflare enable hosting static websites on R2. For me that would be an absolute game changer. I know you can already host websites on Cloudflare using another service but I want to see R2 get enabled.
- greg-m 5y agoWe've heard this a few times and will support it :). Also, shameless plug for Cloudflare Pages to host on CF today.
- rmason 5y agoThanks Greg, You just made my day!
- sneak 5y agoI'd like very much to use Cloudflare Pages but I don't use GitHub due to the fact that GitHub continues to provide services to concentration camp operators. Can I lodge a request to support arbitrary git fetch URLs with a user-supplied deploy privkey? (I self-host Gitea.) Right now I'm using Netlify and the Netlify CLI lets me upload my static site post-build from CI (which is hooked up to my repos). I've got CF in front of that, but I'd much prefer to keep it all in CF.
- GordonS 5y agoI recently deployed a small, static site using a Cloudflare Worker Site, using the Wrangler CLI tool to publish it - I'd never used Cloudflare Workers before, but it was easy, and whole dev UX from start to finish was superb! I looked into Cloudflare Pages first, which on the face of it would be a better fit - but AFAICS it can only deploy from code hosted in a GitHub repo. Not even git in general, but specifically only with GitHub - and I'm using Azure DevOps. I'd love to see additional deployment mechanisms for Pages - ideally support would be added to Wrangler, so I could deploy from a CD pipeline hosted anywhere, just like I can for Workers.
- spullara 5y ago"Your margin is my opportunity." - Jeff Bezos
- junon 5y agoI skipped this and read the original announcement. Cloudflare has some serious skin in this game it seems - definitely earned raised eyebrows. The migration bit alone is going to be enough to motivate PMs and devs to switch. The free egress seems insane from a business perspective but if Cloudflare wants to do it them I'm all for it. Very cool.
- Shadonototra 5y agoit won't, it still is over priced compared to its real cost at best it makes it a compelling alternative, but the story ends here
- TrueCarry 5y agoWe used DigitalOcean Spaces for some time, but it works very slow. Every few requests we get 500-5000ms delays. So we switched to Amazon S3 and it works much better. So when I first saw R2, I was sure we're gonna migrate as soon as we can. Post mentions that Backblaze and Wasabi offer better prices, but I couldn't find any reviews at the time when we migrated to amazon. Is it gonna work as DigitalOcean? How often there's downtime? Does anybody use them and has opinion?
- gazby 5y agoWe did the same transition, but from BunnyCDN (their push option) to S3, but didn't see the level of improvement we wanted. Then we tried Google Storage and hoooly crap it blows s3 out of the water. Cloudflare seems like it's the only remaining player who could compete with them on both quality/speed and price.
- Thaxll 5y agoSo Cloudflare comfirms that we can use R2 to store public docker images that will serve TB of content per month almost free?
- dadrian 5y agoLet's say you sell a data product that generates around 1TB per day, which is downloaded by every customer once. On AWS/GCP, that's roughly $80/day/customer in egress costs, which would make the minimum pricing of the data product $30K/year to break even SOLELY egress, assuming each customer only does the download once. It's basically not possible to offer something like this on AWS or GCP, you have to run your own server somewhere with flat bandwidth pricing. If I were still in the data business, I'd absolutely be moving everything to R2.
- mattjaynes 5y agoIn any comparisons with B2, don't forget to consider that they have a 2 hour maintenance window every Thursday during the US business day: https://www.backblaze.com/scheduled-maintenance.html https://www.backblaze.com/scheduled-maintenance.html They usually don't go down during that time, but sometimes they do and their support told us to always expect outages during this time. If you need your B2 data available during those windows, you'll need to also set up a failover data source for those times.
- pqdbr 5y agoAWS's bandwidth pricing is already crazy expensive on US, but when you look at LATAM pricing (Sao Paulo) it's simply outrageous. And you're paying in USD with a devalued BRL. If Cloudflare really delivers R2 with free egress and a global CDN you'd have to be crazy not to switch.
- luhn 5y agoThis article touches on the one major unanswered question I have about R2: CloudFlare's CDN ToS make it clear CF is meant to host websites and APIs, not content downloads [1]. Does R2 have similar ToS? It's reasonable that CF doesn't want R2 customers that use 500MB of paid storage and 500TB of free bandwidth, so what is acceptable use? [1] The Services are offered primarily as a platform to cache and serve web pages and websites. Unless explicitly included as part of a Paid Service purchased by you, you agree to use the Services solely for the purpose of (i) serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other functionally equivalent applications, including rendering Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or other functional equivalents, and (ii) serving web APIs subject to the restrictions set forth in this Section 2.8. Use of the Services for serving video or a disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content is prohibited, unless purchased separately as part of a Paid Service or expressly allowed under our Supplemental Terms for a specific Service.
- bikeshaving 5y agoThe CEO (eastdakota) has previously said the clause does not apply to services like Cloudflare workers on this very site (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791605). I also think the phrase “Unless explicitly included as part of a Paid Service purchased by you” carries a lot of weight here.
- nightpool 5y agoCloudflare's CEO (eastdakota) has said publicly that that section doesn't apply to R2 and that they'll update their TOS to clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28682885
- aborsy 5y agoHow about the performance? S3 is faster than other cloud products such as Dropbox or GCP. Will R2 be as fast, durable, reliable, etc, with same features, eg, all sorts of encryption key management etc?
- ATsch 5y agoI think it's kind of sad that, with all of the services offering an object store, nobody has created a better API standard than cloning the weird and clunky S3 API.
- idealmedtech 5y agoThe problem is not that nobody wants to create or use such an API, the problem is that so much infrastructure and tooling is built up around the S3 API that to forgo it would be to leave your customers high and dry when it comes to integrating. I think it was the creator of Java that said something to the effect of "There are languages people hate, and languages people don't use", which I think is very applicable here!
- polote 5y agoR2 only seems to offer better price than S3. If people using S3 were caring so much about the cost they wouldn't use S3 in the first place. So my bet is that it won't change anything for S3 I also bet it will not change anything for B2. They will still be cheaper than R2 It always funny to see people on HN thinking that price for enterprise companies is a critical factor. It is for some, but for most of them (especially the ones using AWS) it is not
- kondro 5y agoAll the alternatives for 11 9's durability object stores have similar prices to S3. There aren't any alternatives. Wasabi gets close, but their 1:1 storage to egress ratio makes it great for backups and a small subset of use-cases, but not much else.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bashtoni 5y agoI think this question misses the point. Few organisations use just S3 - they use the entire AWS ecosystem, of which S3 plays a central part. The biggest blocker for most enterprises is probably AWS IAM integration. With S3 I can write a bucket policy that references roles that can be assumed by instances, Lambda functions, people via SSO etc. With R2, I now need to worry about how to securely distribute credentials to access the buckets, how to rotate those credentials, how to ensure they don't leak. It's perfectly do-able, but it means AWS are always going to have the upper hand. I'm excited to see some real competition in this space, but switching to R2 has some significant blockers at present. If I was working for Cloudflare on this product, I'd be focusing my effort on how to make integrating R2 with AWS services as simple as possible. I definitely think it's do-able, but it's going to need a team all of its own.
- axelthegerman 5y agoFair point, my previous organization also used IAM extensively and I don't know how we could have fulfilled our compliance requirements without it. That being said, in that case you pay what you get for. S3 is not just storage, it's integrated with the rest of the AWS ecosystem. But if you write a small service/product that just needs to store and transfer a lot of data 1) IAM is not needed and almost more a burden but 2) you can have it cheaper elsewhere e.g. R2 now
- RNCTX 5y agoI think you overestimate the number of people who want to so lock themselves into a particular provider that they would use that provider's auth systems. There are lots of different use cases for lots of different things. Since Cloudflare doesn't have the compute-type services that AWS has, rather is more specifically aimed at web-serving type services, I think their design here makes a lot of sense. As a user that Cloudflare would target (someone who works on web sites and web-based apps), IAM is an annoyance to me that I would gladly not use on AWS if I could just toggle it off and replace it with a simpler permissions system.
- chrislusf 5y agoThere are simply too many object store vendors, with different storage pricing, egress pricing, network speed, and reliabilities. What about using SeaweedFS gateway to remote object store? https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs/wiki/Gateway-to-Remote-Object-Storage https://github.com/chrislusf/seaweedfs/wiki/Gateway-to-Remot... Basically you can think it is a cache. You operate with normal S3 APIs, and the data will be uploaded to remote storage asynchronously (most vendors have free uploading). It's not a magic pill for all users, but it should be very fast, and cut down the API costs, egress costs.
- austinpena 5y agoI'll take a look at this for a future content piece. Please email me austinpena \[at\]taloflow . ai if you've used it, I'd love to hear your thoughts!
- dfasfdasfd 5y agoWill AWS use their dirty trick again and reduce pricing, just because there is another competitor? If so, why didn't they decreased prices before?
- sinsterizme 5y agoWhy would they? You’re pointing at market forces and making it out to be nefarious
- busymom0 5y agoI need to test presignedurls in R2 to figure out if they allow specifying file names, file size limits and time limits for the put/post requests. If so, then I might switch from B2 and S3.
- Gigachad 5y agoI almost feel dumb asking this, but what does “zero cost egress” actually mean?
- rreichman 5y agoCost of moving data out of the network. See https://aviatrix.com/learn-center/cloud-security/egress-and-ingress/ https://aviatrix.com/learn-center/cloud-security/egress-and-...
- Gigachad 5y agoSo this means free download? So if I host a 1tb file on r2, I pay for the storage but download is unlimited? Seems like a pretty good deal.