7 ms·

It's pretty simple. Excessive egress costs = vendor lock in, and yes, forcing third party services into the same cloud (the walled garden), and limiting custom

It's pretty simple. Excessive egress costs = vendor lock in, and yes, forcing third party services into the same cloud (the walled garden), and limiting customer choice. Just another reason so many orgs are getting heartburn from going too deep too fast into the cloud.

echelon 3y ago
Amazing: Cloudflare -- Free for most services OVH Cloud -- Free and unlimited Scaleway -- Free for most services Great: Hetzner 20-60 TB / mo per instance $1.08 Not bad: Linode 1-20 TB / mo per instance $5.00 Oracle Cloud 10 TB / mo $8.50 A bit much: Backblaze 3x the amount of data stored $10.00 Bunny CDN -- $10.00 DigitalOcean 100 GB - 10 TB / mo per instance $10.00 UpCloud 500 GB - 24 TB / mo per instance $10.77 Vultr 2 TB / mo for most services $10.00 Uh... Fly.io 100 GB / mo $20.00 Are you actually serious? Microsoft Azure 100 GB / mo $78.30 Amazon Web Services 100 GB / mo $92.16 Railway -- $100.00 Zeabur 10-100 GB, depends on plan $100.00 Google Cloud Depends on service $111.60 Screw you guys: Render 100 GB - 1 TB, depends on plan $300.00 Vercel 100 GB - 1 TB, depends on plan $400.00 Netlify 100 GB - 1 TB, depends on plan $550.00 (We use Netlify and have well over 1TB of monthly traffic. They're insanely expensive for what they are. As soon as we have roadmap time to revisit it, we'll move away.) I'm starting to think of cloud as less of an asset and as more of a liability. We can leverage them for temporary scale, but in no way will we tie ourselves to a particular vendor.
- tomcam 3y ago
  I’m guessing you can negotiate for sharply reduced rates. No one pays list if they can help it.
- phonon 3y ago
  AWS Lightsail is actually pretty good, comparable to Linode (except it maxes out at 7 TB/month). https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    It's also in the SLA to not use lightsail as a proxy
    - phonon 3y ago
      I'm comparing Lightsail standalone.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dijit 3y ago
  One thing we should all have a subtle understanding of: if you are a company selling infrastructure tooling as a service (Vercel, for example). You should probably try to avoid hyperscalers. The adage is that you should outsource the things that are not your core competence. However if your product is infrastructure for developers then outsourcing that is going to be painful. You are forced to pass down costs from your upstream supplier, and headroom is necessary (somewhat) because your provider can dictate terms essentially on a whim. I feel like this is such an obvious statement, but we do seem to be in the gold-rush of avoiding responsibility so I'm not certain.
  - lumost 3y ago
    Practically, this means that if you are an infrastructure tolling company - then you must reinvent all pieces of the cloud supply chain before building your product. That’s a very expensive proposition. While the paper cost of a few racks in a colo is low - the people time to get where you want to be is high. If you mess up in this evolution - there is a risk that others outcompete you on something that isn’t your core product.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      The people time of setup in a colo or managed provider is trivial if you hire someone who actually know what they're doing, and usually lower than a cloud setup. It's stupidly easy to mess up a cloud setup in ways that are hard with a rack. I find this is mostly an issue with a lot of shops simply having nobody with actual ops experience.
      - lumost 3y ago
        It’s not so much the setup time for the hardware/networking. This takes some time, but can reasonably be done in a few months even for complex setups. The problem comes when you then wish to have things like CI/CD, distributed databases etc.
        vidarh 3y ago
- avereveard 3y ago
  Aws transfer costs seems off by a factor of ten sticker price is $0.09-0.14 per gb depending on region how did you get 100gb for 98$?
  - angoragoats 3y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, this is copied from the OP, which is pointing out that you get 100GB/mo free (that's the "100GB/mo" part). The $92.16 cost is for 1TB of egress. It's clearer in the original article.
  - cchance 3y ago
    100gb is the free 1tb is for the 98$ as the pricing based on 1tb chunks in the article
- blackoil 3y ago
  It looks like Netlify $550 also includes hosting and CDN so not apple to apple.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  With Netlify it costs more than hiring a courier to ship an SSD that you paid for and turn up in person and copy it and deliver it next day.
- ehPReth 3y ago
  there's no way it actually costs them that much right?
  - kyledrake 3y ago
    Not even close. I think a 1gbps ip transit hookup at a data center goes for $200-400 a month right now. And you can push 192TB a month with that. That's not the bulk cost, they buy larger amounts in volume and probably get a huge discount on it. In fact given their size, they might not pay for it at all (peering agreements), so it's just operating costs.
    - nixgeek 3y ago
      A good chunk of network capital is also amortized into these costs, it isn't just the 20 cents per megabit for IP settlement, it would also be all the routers those ports are connected to, the racks those sit in, the electricity those consume, and the networks beneath that from the hypervisor upwards. Add on the usual and egregious $150-400/mo for a SMF/OS1 crossconnect in many datacenters. Now, I'll grant you, "not even close" and handsome margins likely still applies but "I'm going to hook a server directly into a 1Gbps IP transit port for $200" vs. all the complexity of a hyperscaler network is not apples to apples.
      - amluto 3y ago
        > A good chunk of network capital is also amortized into these costs, it isn't just the 20 cents per megabit for IP settlement, it would also be all the routers those ports are connected to, the racks those sit in, the electricity those consume, and the networks beneath that from the hypervisor upwards. Some of that is capex, and some is opex. But it's worth noting that the hyperscalers are doing something far, for more complex than almost any single-tenant physical installation would do. In a hyperscaler cloud, I can run an instance anywhere in the AZ, and I can connect it to my VPC, and I get what appears to be, functions like, and performs as if I'm plugged in to conventional network infrastructure. This is amazing, and the clouds don't even charge for this service as such. There are papers written about how this works, presentations are given, costs are bragged about, and entire industries of software-defined networking are devoted to enabling use cases like this. But an on-prem or normal datacenter installation doesn't need any of this. Your favorite networking equipment vendor will happily sell you a single switch with tens of Tbps of switching bankwidth and individual links that are pushing 1Tbps. It takes maybe 2RU. If you are serving 1 billion DAU, you can serve up a respectable amount of content on that one switch. You could stick all the content in one rack (good luck at that scale), or you can scale across a few racks, and you don't need any of the amazing things that hyperscalers use. And, realistically, very very few companies will ever need to scale past that in a single datacenter -- there aren't a whole lot of places were even 100% market penetration can find 1 billion people all close enough to a single datacenter that it makes sense. So the apples-to-oranges comparison cuts both ways. You really can get a lot of mileage out of just plugging some off-the-shelf hardware into a transit port or two.
- supriyo-biswas 3y ago
  In the case of fly.io it’s a little different because they have a anycast network with traffic being accepted at the closest region and being proxied to your running VM. This is not unlike a CDN, and if you look at the North America/Europe pricing of most CDNs, fly.io is quite similar.
  - wolfendin 3y ago
    Anycast does not really make the pricing that different. Especially since one does not have to backhaul the traffic to one specific PoP. Cloudflare manages to run their Anycast CDN as a loss leader just fine.
    - supriyo-biswas 3y ago
      I believe Cloudflare is in the long-haul of commoditizing their competitors and making their profit through other auxiliary services. Also, on the plan routing is atrocious, with all requests from Africa and Asia being directed into Europe, which helps keep costs down, but it cannot then be compared with fly.io.
- hknmtt 3y ago
  [dead]

echelon 3y ago

Amazing: Cloudflare -- Free for most services OVH Cloud -- Free and unlimited Scaleway -- Free for most services Great: Hetzner 20-60 TB / mo per instance $1.08 Not bad: Linode 1-20 TB / mo per instance $5.00 Oracle Cloud 10 TB / mo $8.50 A bit much: Backblaze 3x the amount of data stored $10.00 Bunny CDN -- $10.00 DigitalOcean 100 GB - 10 TB / mo per instance $10.00 UpCloud 500 GB - 24 TB / mo per instance $10.77 Vultr 2 TB / mo for most services $10.00 Uh... Fly.io 100 GB / mo $20.00 Are you actually serious? Microsoft Azure 100 GB / mo $78.30 Amazon Web Services 100 GB / mo $92.16 Railway -- $100.00 Zeabur 10-100 GB, depends on plan $100.00 Google Cloud Depends on service $111.60 Screw you guys: Render 100 GB - 1 TB, depends on plan $300.00 Vercel 100 GB - 1 TB, depends on plan $400.00 Netlify 100 GB - 1 TB, depends on plan $550.00 (We use Netlify and have well over 1TB of monthly traffic. They're insanely expensive for what they are. As soon as we have roadmap time to revisit it, we'll move away.) I'm starting to think of cloud as less of an asset and as more of a liability. We can leverage them for temporary scale, but in no way will we tie ourselves to a particular vendor.

tomcam 3y ago
I’m guessing you can negotiate for sharply reduced rates. No one pays list if they can help it.
phonon 3y ago
AWS Lightsail is actually pretty good, comparable to Linode (except it maxes out at 7 TB/month). https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/
- hughesjj 3y ago
  It's also in the SLA to not use lightsail as a proxy
  - phonon 3y ago
    I'm comparing Lightsail standalone.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dijit 3y ago
One thing we should all have a subtle understanding of: if you are a company selling infrastructure tooling as a service (Vercel, for example). You should probably try to avoid hyperscalers. The adage is that you should outsource the things that are not your core competence. However if your product is infrastructure for developers then outsourcing that is going to be painful. You are forced to pass down costs from your upstream supplier, and headroom is necessary (somewhat) because your provider can dictate terms essentially on a whim. I feel like this is such an obvious statement, but we do seem to be in the gold-rush of avoiding responsibility so I'm not certain.
- lumost 3y ago
  Practically, this means that if you are an infrastructure tolling company - then you must reinvent all pieces of the cloud supply chain before building your product. That’s a very expensive proposition. While the paper cost of a few racks in a colo is low - the people time to get where you want to be is high. If you mess up in this evolution - there is a risk that others outcompete you on something that isn’t your core product.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    The people time of setup in a colo or managed provider is trivial if you hire someone who actually know what they're doing, and usually lower than a cloud setup. It's stupidly easy to mess up a cloud setup in ways that are hard with a rack. I find this is mostly an issue with a lot of shops simply having nobody with actual ops experience.
    - lumost 3y ago
      It’s not so much the setup time for the hardware/networking. This takes some time, but can reasonably be done in a few months even for complex setups. The problem comes when you then wish to have things like CI/CD, distributed databases etc.
      - vidarh 3y ago
avereveard 3y ago
Aws transfer costs seems off by a factor of ten sticker price is $0.09-0.14 per gb depending on region how did you get 100gb for 98$?
- angoragoats 3y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, this is copied from the OP, which is pointing out that you get 100GB/mo free (that's the "100GB/mo" part). The $92.16 cost is for 1TB of egress. It's clearer in the original article.
- cchance 3y ago
  100gb is the free 1tb is for the 98$ as the pricing based on 1tb chunks in the article
blackoil 3y ago
It looks like Netlify $550 also includes hosting and CDN so not apple to apple.
quickthrower2 3y ago
With Netlify it costs more than hiring a courier to ship an SSD that you paid for and turn up in person and copy it and deliver it next day.
ehPReth 3y ago
there's no way it actually costs them that much right?
- kyledrake 3y ago
  Not even close. I think a 1gbps ip transit hookup at a data center goes for $200-400 a month right now. And you can push 192TB a month with that. That's not the bulk cost, they buy larger amounts in volume and probably get a huge discount on it. In fact given their size, they might not pay for it at all (peering agreements), so it's just operating costs.
  - nixgeek 3y ago
    A good chunk of network capital is also amortized into these costs, it isn't just the 20 cents per megabit for IP settlement, it would also be all the routers those ports are connected to, the racks those sit in, the electricity those consume, and the networks beneath that from the hypervisor upwards. Add on the usual and egregious $150-400/mo for a SMF/OS1 crossconnect in many datacenters. Now, I'll grant you, "not even close" and handsome margins likely still applies but "I'm going to hook a server directly into a 1Gbps IP transit port for $200" vs. all the complexity of a hyperscaler network is not apples to apples.
    - amluto 3y ago
      > A good chunk of network capital is also amortized into these costs, it isn't just the 20 cents per megabit for IP settlement, it would also be all the routers those ports are connected to, the racks those sit in, the electricity those consume, and the networks beneath that from the hypervisor upwards. Some of that is capex, and some is opex. But it's worth noting that the hyperscalers are doing something far, for more complex than almost any single-tenant physical installation would do. In a hyperscaler cloud, I can run an instance anywhere in the AZ, and I can connect it to my VPC, and I get what appears to be, functions like, and performs as if I'm plugged in to conventional network infrastructure. This is amazing, and the clouds don't even charge for this service as such. There are papers written about how this works, presentations are given, costs are bragged about, and entire industries of software-defined networking are devoted to enabling use cases like this. But an on-prem or normal datacenter installation doesn't need any of this. Your favorite networking equipment vendor will happily sell you a single switch with tens of Tbps of switching bankwidth and individual links that are pushing 1Tbps. It takes maybe 2RU. If you are serving 1 billion DAU, you can serve up a respectable amount of content on that one switch. You could stick all the content in one rack (good luck at that scale), or you can scale across a few racks, and you don't need any of the amazing things that hyperscalers use. And, realistically, very very few companies will ever need to scale past that in a single datacenter -- there aren't a whole lot of places were even 100% market penetration can find 1 billion people all close enough to a single datacenter that it makes sense. So the apples-to-oranges comparison cuts both ways. You really can get a lot of mileage out of just plugging some off-the-shelf hardware into a transit port or two.
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
In the case of fly.io it’s a little different because they have a anycast network with traffic being accepted at the closest region and being proxied to your running VM. This is not unlike a CDN, and if you look at the North America/Europe pricing of most CDNs, fly.io is quite similar.
- wolfendin 3y ago
  Anycast does not really make the pricing that different. Especially since one does not have to backhaul the traffic to one specific PoP. Cloudflare manages to run their Anycast CDN as a loss leader just fine.
  - supriyo-biswas 3y ago
    I believe Cloudflare is in the long-haul of commoditizing their competitors and making their profit through other auxiliary services. Also, on the plan routing is atrocious, with all requests from Africa and Asia being directed into Europe, which helps keep costs down, but it cannot then be compared with fly.io.
hknmtt 3y ago
[dead]