6 ms·

I don't understand how Backblaze doesn't charge for PutObject B2 calls. I'm not complaining, I just don't understand it. At work, we have a use case where we

I don't understand how Backblaze doesn't charge for PutObject B2 calls. I'm not complaining, I just don't understand it. At work, we have a use case where we store tens of millions of small files and mostly forget about them, never to read them again. (We later read maybe one out of a thousand, but we don't know what we'll need to read ahead of time, and the value of the files is substantial). Amazon charges us something like $5,000/month, almost entirely due to PutObject calls. (I'm sure there are ways we could better architect this, but it is what it is). If we moved this to Backblaze, we'd essentially only be charged for the storage, which is maybe 1TB at most. We're going to bombard the service with tens of millions of requests for like $5/month in storage costs. How can this work for them?

jffry 5y ago
It could work if B2 customers use the service in a diverse enough variety of patterns to where the economics still work out in aggregate.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm sure something like that is the strategy. The pricing is simple and easily understandable as-is. It's a nice marketing point to say all uploads are free, aside from storage costs. Still, even if they had some ridiculously high surcharge for excess PUTs, I think it would be understandable, and would encourage people like me to architect a different solution that doesn't involve tens of millions of PUTs.
Implicated 5y ago
I don't know anything about the technical sides of how these services are built, but through a client I do put heavy use to the B2 service and I can tell you there are some differences (backblaze covers some of that here [0]) in the way the services work. I get the feeling some of those are how they're shaving cost. [0]: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/design-thinking-b2-apis-the-hidden-costs-of-s3-compatibility/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/design-thinking-b2-apis-the-h...
- Implicated 5y ago
  BTW, my client is also in a similar situation where the cost to store our files on S3 is prohibitive to profit on the product, where as.. I can't believe how cheap B2 is. ~ 300 million 10-40MB jpegs, peanuts compared to what S3 was.
  - jlmorton 5y ago
    At least with a 10mb avg file, 100 PUTs net them $0.005/month in storage fees. That's something. In my use case, it's probably more like 10,000 PUTs for the same amount. Backblaze, if you're reading this, I don't think anyone will mind if you put in place some kind of surcharge for people like me. I haven't moved to the service, and it's almost because I feel _bad_, like I'm abusing your terms, or something. It's almost hard to even present a project to switch: "Why should we authorize this project?" "Because it eliminates our $5,000/month AWS spend on the task" "How does it eliminate it?" "It's free on Backblaze." "What's wrong with Backblaze that it's free?"
- jpalomaki 5y ago
  Articles like is the reason I started to trust BackBlaze in the first place. They go into details - just like with storage pod articles - on justifying why they can sell the service at lower price. Gives me confidence that low pricing is not just marketing trick.
rasz 5y ago
So you store ~4 files per second? a Pi with USB HDD could serve your needs ;-)

jffry 5y ago

It could work if B2 customers use the service in a diverse enough variety of patterns to where the economics still work out in aggregate.

jlmorton 5y ago
Yeah, I'm sure something like that is the strategy. The pricing is simple and easily understandable as-is. It's a nice marketing point to say all uploads are free, aside from storage costs. Still, even if they had some ridiculously high surcharge for excess PUTs, I think it would be understandable, and would encourage people like me to architect a different solution that doesn't involve tens of millions of PUTs.

Implicated 5y ago

I don't know anything about the technical sides of how these services are built, but through a client I do put heavy use to the B2 service and I can tell you there are some differences (backblaze covers some of that here [0]) in the way the services work. I get the feeling some of those are how they're shaving cost. [0]: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/design-thinking-b2-apis-the-hidden-costs-of-s3-compatibility/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/design-thinking-b2-apis-the-h...

Implicated 5y ago
BTW, my client is also in a similar situation where the cost to store our files on S3 is prohibitive to profit on the product, where as.. I can't believe how cheap B2 is. ~ 300 million 10-40MB jpegs, peanuts compared to what S3 was.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  At least with a 10mb avg file, 100 PUTs net them $0.005/month in storage fees. That's something. In my use case, it's probably more like 10,000 PUTs for the same amount. Backblaze, if you're reading this, I don't think anyone will mind if you put in place some kind of surcharge for people like me. I haven't moved to the service, and it's almost because I feel _bad_, like I'm abusing your terms, or something. It's almost hard to even present a project to switch: "Why should we authorize this project?" "Because it eliminates our $5,000/month AWS spend on the task" "How does it eliminate it?" "It's free on Backblaze." "What's wrong with Backblaze that it's free?"
jpalomaki 5y ago
Articles like is the reason I started to trust BackBlaze in the first place. They go into details - just like with storage pod articles - on justifying why they can sell the service at lower price. Gives me confidence that low pricing is not just marketing trick.

rasz 5y ago

So you store ~4 files per second? a Pi with USB HDD could serve your needs ;-)