3 ms·

I’m storing 87TB on https://wasabi.com/ https://wasabi.com/ for ~$515 a month

by waskip 4y ago

hardwaresofton 4y ago
The trick with Wasabi is that you are generally expected to not retrieve more than you’ve input in the same month, no? “Less egress” would essentially be the trick on wasabi where zero egress cost is the defining feature of R2. Of course, there must be limits to it but it is interesting. Wonder if at this point teams start to consider different S3 providers for different weekends
- ryan29 4y ago
  > The trick with Wasabi is that you are generally expected to not retrieve more than you’ve input in the same month, no? No. It's basically one download of all your data in 1 month [1]. > For example, if you store 100 TB with Wasabi and download (egress) 100 TB or less within a monthly billing cycle, then your storage use case is a good fit for our policy. If your monthly downloads exceed 100 TB, then your use case is not a good fit. In my experience it's an excellent fit for backups if you run disaster recovery tests quarterly on each set and have enough sets to run on a rotating, monthly schedule. You're only downloading about 25% per month at that point. 1. https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/#free-egress-policy https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/#free-egress-policy
electroly 4y ago
If you're using it for hot object storage and not as a cold backup, Wasabi has by far the worst egress situation of any object storage provider. They have "free" egress because egress is capped at 1 full retrieval per month, and they'll just ban you if you use more. R2 has actual, legitimately free egress. I think there's almost no overlap in use cases between Wasabi and R2 even though they're ostensibly both object storage providers.
londons_explore 4y ago
I think it shows market failure when someone can offer exactly the same service as a competitor (an S3 API) for an 80% lower price, and not almost immediately take over the whole market. I think governments need to step in and require that compute platforms like AWS are split up into constituent parts, and there is no cost disadvantage to mix-n-matching between suppliers. Eg. VM's on Azure and storage across the road in AWS should not require payment of egress fees that wouldn't be payable within either providers network.
- fabian2k 4y ago
  For storage you need trust, an S3 competitor doesn't help me if they lose my data or are unreliable. It takes time to earn that trust, and it's far from easy for small competitors to do that.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    There's also performance / availability / capacity things to consider as well. It may be for some, but the $/storage isn't typically the whole story.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  There's a natural stickiness to cloud infra and SaaS which lends providers a pseudo monopolistic pricing power, even when competitors are present. Some regulation requiring a common API and one click solution to transfer between providers would help solve this. Needs to be implemented intelligently though
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    One simple way to do it would be if the FTC announced: > From January 1st 2023, we will consider it anti-competitive for cloud providers to price internal service bandwidth at a rate lower than internet bandwidth to a competing service.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      Yeah, a lot of thought needs to be put into the actual rule, but something along these lines... While accounting for unintended consequences
    - throwaway48484 4y ago
      Big companies like Amazon, Google or Microsoft could set the price to zero, and their smaller competitors would be losing a lot of money each month? Basically an easy way to get rid of the competition Sounds like it would mostly benefit the large companies It would be better if internet was considered basic infrastructure and funded by taxes like roads.

I’m storing 87TB on https://wasabi.com/ https://wasabi.com/ for ~$515 a month

by waskip 4y ago

I’m storing 87TB on https://wasabi.com/ https://wasabi.com/ for ~$515 a month

The trick with Wasabi is that you are generally expected to not retrieve more than you’ve input in the same month, no? “Less egress” would essentially be the trick on wasabi where zero egress cost is the defining feature of R2. Of course, there must be limits to it but it is interesting. Wonder if at this point teams start to consider different S3 providers for different weekends

ryan29 4y ago
> The trick with Wasabi is that you are generally expected to not retrieve more than you’ve input in the same month, no? No. It's basically one download of all your data in 1 month [1]. > For example, if you store 100 TB with Wasabi and download (egress) 100 TB or less within a monthly billing cycle, then your storage use case is a good fit for our policy. If your monthly downloads exceed 100 TB, then your use case is not a good fit. In my experience it's an excellent fit for backups if you run disaster recovery tests quarterly on each set and have enough sets to run on a rotating, monthly schedule. You're only downloading about 25% per month at that point. 1. https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/#free-egress-policy https://wasabi.com/paygo-pricing-faq/#free-egress-policy

electroly 4y ago

If you're using it for hot object storage and not as a cold backup, Wasabi has by far the worst egress situation of any object storage provider. They have "free" egress because egress is capped at 1 full retrieval per month, and they'll just ban you if you use more. R2 has actual, legitimately free egress. I think there's almost no overlap in use cases between Wasabi and R2 even though they're ostensibly both object storage providers.

londons_explore 4y ago

I think it shows market failure when someone can offer exactly the same service as a competitor (an S3 API) for an 80% lower price, and not almost immediately take over the whole market. I think governments need to step in and require that compute platforms like AWS are split up into constituent parts, and there is no cost disadvantage to mix-n-matching between suppliers. Eg. VM's on Azure and storage across the road in AWS should not require payment of egress fees that wouldn't be payable within either providers network.

fabian2k 4y ago
For storage you need trust, an S3 competitor doesn't help me if they lose my data or are unreliable. It takes time to earn that trust, and it's far from easy for small competitors to do that.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  There's also performance / availability / capacity things to consider as well. It may be for some, but the $/storage isn't typically the whole story.
adam_arthur 4y ago
There's a natural stickiness to cloud infra and SaaS which lends providers a pseudo monopolistic pricing power, even when competitors are present. Some regulation requiring a common API and one click solution to transfer between providers would help solve this. Needs to be implemented intelligently though
- londons_explore 4y ago
  One simple way to do it would be if the FTC announced: > From January 1st 2023, we will consider it anti-competitive for cloud providers to price internal service bandwidth at a rate lower than internet bandwidth to a competing service.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Yeah, a lot of thought needs to be put into the actual rule, but something along these lines... While accounting for unintended consequences
  - throwaway48484 4y ago
    Big companies like Amazon, Google or Microsoft could set the price to zero, and their smaller competitors would be losing a lot of money each month? Basically an easy way to get rid of the competition Sounds like it would mostly benefit the large companies It would be better if internet was considered basic infrastructure and funded by taxes like roads.