3 ms·
Like hell S3 isn't expensive.
by ajkirwin 18y ago
Like hell S3 isn't expensive.
- jemmons 18y agoYou contribute nothing to the conversation. This has already been discussed in some detail at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=422225 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=422225. I suggest anyone interested in talking price/value reads up on that thread before commenting here.
- ajkirwin 18y agoI run a fairly small site. We're upto around 7 million hits a month, still pretty tiny. Our costs right now are fairly low, but recently I made a post inquiring how to cluster efficiently, because we needed more bandwidth available (And we were going to use a few 10mbit servers). Someone suggested that we use s3. This would've tripled our bandwidth costs. This is why I believe it's expensive.
- easp 18y agoAnd how would your s3 bandwidth costs compare to running your clustered servers? Is the DIY storage triply redundant? I'm not saying you made the wrong decision, or the right one, but is the comparison apples-to-apples?
- ajkirwin 18y agoAlso, that discussion there seemed focus solely on the point of STORAGE. He seemed to be concerned about bandwidth also, for which S3, frankly, is not cheap.