7 ms·

insert doubt

by milesward 5y ago

insert doubt

SteveNuts 5y ago
What part is OP missing?
- mrweasel 5y ago
  Maybe 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 ago
    It 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?
  - starfallg 5y ago
    Zero egress costs for assets is a very strong reason for people to move. For public assets, it's a complete no-brainer.
    - mrweasel 5y ago
      I kinda think people will use the S3 proxy feature of R2 for that, which doesn’t really move customers over.
      - starfallg 5y ago
        Then why not store it on Cloudflare itself and save on half the storage, plus less latency? Makes zero sense to keep public assets on S3 in this case. Only when you need ACL integration or glacier would S3 make sense.
  - deeblering4 5y ago
    Because it's significantly cheaper and diversifies your presence across multiple providers. It's a good idea to split origin and CDN, this way requests can be served from cache while origin is down or overloaded. Plus I'd challenge the suggestions that S3 and CDN are a tiny portion of the infrastructure. For a lot of sites it's a significant chunk, things remaining wouldn't be many, maybe compute, DNS, and CI.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      > diversifies your presence across multiple providers. In this case, for most AWS/CF customers, that diversification is of the "downtime on either represents downtime for their customer" variety. (I'm still a fan of this offering and the pressure it put on the current high price of egress bandwidth, of course.)
      - deeblering4 5y ago
        If S3 was down would R2 be down for the customer? If R2 was down could you re-route back to S3? Diversifying infrastructure provides additional options to mitigate outages.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        If S3 was down, R2 would be up but the rest of your app on AWS would probably be down in the affected (based on the cascading failures in prior S3 outages) so most AWS users are going to be down. If R2 was down and you didn’t rely on anything else that relied on R2, sure, you could repoint DNS and/or issue S3-direct URLs and then clean it up on the way back out. “Additional options” doesn’t come without “additional complexity” and that complexity has a cost. R2’s a great cost-saving move here; I don’t think it’s a reliability improvement generally.
  - outworlder 5y ago
    There are many applications that have no dependency on AWS at all, other than S3. This is one of the reasons projects like Minio exist. If you don't care and just need some blob storage, this could be great.
nawgz 5y ago
Why would you doubt it? Cloudfare is a legit company and a migration workflow like this does not sound like a feat of engineering to accomplish

insert doubt

SteveNuts 5y ago

What part is OP missing?

mrweasel 5y ago
Maybe 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 ago
  It 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?
- starfallg 5y ago
  Zero egress costs for assets is a very strong reason for people to move. For public assets, it's a complete no-brainer.
  - mrweasel 5y ago
    I kinda think people will use the S3 proxy feature of R2 for that, which doesn’t really move customers over.
    - starfallg 5y ago
      Then why not store it on Cloudflare itself and save on half the storage, plus less latency? Makes zero sense to keep public assets on S3 in this case. Only when you need ACL integration or glacier would S3 make sense.
- deeblering4 5y ago
  Because it's significantly cheaper and diversifies your presence across multiple providers. It's a good idea to split origin and CDN, this way requests can be served from cache while origin is down or overloaded. Plus I'd challenge the suggestions that S3 and CDN are a tiny portion of the infrastructure. For a lot of sites it's a significant chunk, things remaining wouldn't be many, maybe compute, DNS, and CI.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    > diversifies your presence across multiple providers. In this case, for most AWS/CF customers, that diversification is of the "downtime on either represents downtime for their customer" variety. (I'm still a fan of this offering and the pressure it put on the current high price of egress bandwidth, of course.)
    - deeblering4 5y ago
      If S3 was down would R2 be down for the customer? If R2 was down could you re-route back to S3? Diversifying infrastructure provides additional options to mitigate outages.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        If S3 was down, R2 would be up but the rest of your app on AWS would probably be down in the affected (based on the cascading failures in prior S3 outages) so most AWS users are going to be down. If R2 was down and you didn’t rely on anything else that relied on R2, sure, you could repoint DNS and/or issue S3-direct URLs and then clean it up on the way back out. “Additional options” doesn’t come without “additional complexity” and that complexity has a cost. R2’s a great cost-saving move here; I don’t think it’s a reliability improvement generally.
- outworlder 5y ago
  There are many applications that have no dependency on AWS at all, other than S3. This is one of the reasons projects like Minio exist. If you don't care and just need some blob storage, this could be great.

nawgz 5y ago

Why would you doubt it? Cloudfare is a legit company and a migration workflow like this does not sound like a feat of engineering to accomplish