5 ms·
Amazon Web Services Drops S3 Storage Service Pricing About 25%
- zrail 14y agoIs this just storage or is it transfer as well?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- rsync 14y agoThat's key. I didn't deeply parse the announcement, but I don't see any mention of transfer - just the per GB storage rates.
- heartbreak 14y agoDeeply parse? Really? Just say you didn't read it.
- sarah2079 14y agoI really like that I can trust Amazon to keep AWS prices reasonable. I have used both AWS and App Engine, and while I love App Engine for ease of use, the pricing changes still make me feel skittish about using it for big projects even though they happened a year ago.
- bitops 14y agoI believe the 'economies of scale' argument, but I also imagine that this move is related to the RedShift announcement. If Amazon wants users to use their offering for data warehousing and analytics, they'll need lots of cheap storage for hosting the data.
- sixQuarks 14y agoSorry for my ignorance, but the pricing is a bit confusing for me. Let's say I have 1 GB of files, and I do 1 Terrabyte of downloads per month, how much would I pay?
- thomseddon 14y agohttp://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html
- zachanker 14y agoSince you're only using 1GB, you would pay 9.5 cents for the storage a month. Then about $122.76/month for the bandwidth since the first GB is free and it's $0.120 per GB afterwards up to 10TB. Making it around $122.855/month total. This change doesn't really reduce your costs by much since most of it in bandwidth which hasn't changed. http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ (standard storage pricing hasn't been updated yet)
- sixQuarks 14y agoThanks, that's what I figured, but some of the terms such as "instances" was confusing me.
- film42 14y agoI become more and more amazed at the price of storage but in the same breath I am still horrified at the price of data at scale. Right now I have a VPS at Carat Networks to throw crap on and I pay $15/m. For that I get 50GB of space and 500GB of transfer. I understand the speed and reliability is greatly improved with S3, but as a simple file host, it still makes sense for me to throw it on a vps or low-end dedicated server at 1/10 - 1/3 the cost of ^this^ projection.
- cstejerean 14y agoHow much of that 500GB of transfer do you actually use every month?
- film42 14y agoI use around 100GB of it, but at $15/m I don't consider that a wasted 400GB, instead it's just available for tunneling.
- rkalla 14y agoAs a quick FYI, I see in the comments below people comparing s3 pricing to the likes of a VPS instance storage from XYZ hosting company. Given that you have no redundancy with that storage you could save an addition 30% and use reduced redundancy storage in s3 which still provides redundancy to a second AZ (just not all of them or across regions in the odd case of US Standard)
- ck2 14y agoI wonder if dreamobjects being S3 api compatible and only 7 cents helped force the price decrease. What I like about dreamobjects is no charge for get/put requests which can really add up with many small items being publicly hosted. Maybe there's a remote chance of Amazon dropping "put" charges but I doubt they will drop "get" charges. Ah I see Google dropped their fees first earlier this week so that was probably the pressure point. I thought Google came afterwards.
- alexpopescu 14y agoGoogle reduces prices with 20%... Amazon with 25%. Game on!