3 ms·

why does it cost so much ? 10 users / 100GB and this is 17$ a month ? We currently run our own SFTP on our 1GB line and I have about 20 sftp users. We transfer

by jaffa2 2y ago

why does it cost so much ? 10 users / 100GB and this is 17$ a month ? We currently run our own SFTP on our 1GB line and I have about 20 sftp users. We transfer only a few gb a month, but every so often we put a few hundred GB on our system for customer to download, so this isn't workble. The built in amazon sftp service looks much better as you only pay for what you use, and it directly with amazon not via some middle man. am i missing something? What i really need is some kind of web front end on our sftp server since we mostly get request from customers that can't use sftp and just want a web front end. I haven't found a good service yet, they all seem to want to 'ingest' all the files into their system, I just need a front end to the files that are already on my disks, to allow multiple downloads etc. My files are typically 1 to 500MB each.

paulhenri_l 2y ago
The main thing I had to take into consideration when determining the pricing was concurrent usage. If I offer access to 10 users, I have to provision enough servers to handle the concurrent load of these users. Because of the file processing that's going on, CPU usage can be quite high, which drives the cost up. Also, other companies in the same field usually have plans starting at around $50. Now, from what you are saying, I see that you would need more users but not more concurrent usage. This makes me think that the pricing would be better if it was for concurrent connections rather than users themselves. For example, 10 concurrent connections with 2k max users. This is possible. I wrote a bit below about AWS Transfer Family, and it comes with a fixed price of $0.30 an hour per SFTP endpoint, making it come to $219 a month without data transfer fees. It's actually one of the reasons why I created Baskt. For the web UI, it's on my roadmap and should be the next major feature I will release. I was thinking about integrating it along with the SFTP server by using the same S3-compatible buckets. But you seem to be more looking to keep your own server. I guess you would rather bridge your SFTP server through the Baskt UI?
- jaffa2 2y ago
  Hi Yes we almost never have 2 or more concurrent users. Our use case is typically 1 time sharing of data e.g we finish a job and output to sftp. Job can be a few gb to a few hundred gb. Customer downloads. Jobs come around every few months. So to be paying recurring fees for a single use seems very expensive. But we are thinking about s3 for longer term storage needs but its a complex setup. If we already used s3 it could Make sense to have the sftp hook on . But now we run our own linux local server connected to TBs of disk space and we just do that. Anything we do will cost more and require learning new technologies and have risks.
  - paulhenri_l 2y ago
    Ok I think I got it. So your software outputs to SFTP but what you would really need is a simple UI for your customers, like direct download links even? I kind of have these features on my roadmap. Would you mind pinging me at my contact mail (available on the website) and I'll keep you updated when I think the offer will match better your needs. Thanks for your feedback!

by jaffa2 2y ago

paulhenri_l 2y ago

The main thing I had to take into consideration when determining the pricing was concurrent usage. If I offer access to 10 users, I have to provision enough servers to handle the concurrent load of these users. Because of the file processing that's going on, CPU usage can be quite high, which drives the cost up. Also, other companies in the same field usually have plans starting at around $50. Now, from what you are saying, I see that you would need more users but not more concurrent usage. This makes me think that the pricing would be better if it was for concurrent connections rather than users themselves. For example, 10 concurrent connections with 2k max users. This is possible. I wrote a bit below about AWS Transfer Family, and it comes with a fixed price of $0.30 an hour per SFTP endpoint, making it come to $219 a month without data transfer fees. It's actually one of the reasons why I created Baskt. For the web UI, it's on my roadmap and should be the next major feature I will release. I was thinking about integrating it along with the SFTP server by using the same S3-compatible buckets. But you seem to be more looking to keep your own server. I guess you would rather bridge your SFTP server through the Baskt UI?

jaffa2 2y ago
Hi Yes we almost never have 2 or more concurrent users. Our use case is typically 1 time sharing of data e.g we finish a job and output to sftp. Job can be a few gb to a few hundred gb. Customer downloads. Jobs come around every few months. So to be paying recurring fees for a single use seems very expensive. But we are thinking about s3 for longer term storage needs but its a complex setup. If we already used s3 it could Make sense to have the sftp hook on . But now we run our own linux local server connected to TBs of disk space and we just do that. Anything we do will cost more and require learning new technologies and have risks.
- paulhenri_l 2y ago
  Ok I think I got it. So your software outputs to SFTP but what you would really need is a simple UI for your customers, like direct download links even? I kind of have these features on my roadmap. Would you mind pinging me at my contact mail (available on the website) and I'll keep you updated when I think the offer will match better your needs. Thanks for your feedback!