4 ms·

https://google.com/search?q=100tb https://google.com/search?q=100tb There are many cheaper options. The ones you mention seem to be the most expensive.

Uchikoma 14y ago
Hetzner is around $200 for 100TB with 1gbit.
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  The mentioned leaseweb is indeed cheaper $95 for a 100TB server, around $550 for an unmetered 1gbit server.
  - thezilch 14y ago
    And do not provide comparable service to a CDN. The comparison is really apples and oranges.
  - Uchikoma 14y ago
    @thezilch: My understanding from the article was that the poster wanted to deliver without load to his server, settled with 2 servers in NL and was not in for the CDN part.
byoung2 14y ago
S3 and Cloudfront are targeted at the dabbler, who will likely only be serving a GB or two per month, in which case S3 and Cloudfront would be pennies with no long term commitment. Once you move beyond that and are storing and serving more than 1 TB, you'd be better off with a monthly commitment.
- imsofuture 14y ago
  Just FYI, Cloudfront does heavily discount committed pricing.
  - byoung2 14y ago
    True, but that starts at 10 TB/mo
RKearney 14y ago
You have to read the fine print though. Amazon CloudFront, while expensive, is designed for delivering content globally. Take 100TB for example (the first result in that Google Search) d. We strive to maintain a high level of service, and a lot of customers depend on our high standards of quality. As such, we will not provide Services to those that are using our Services for: vii. Using the Services for a content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN). An authorized CDN network offered through 100TB is accepted. Special requests to use the Services to run an unauthorized CDN network may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Failure to comply with this policy will result in termination of this TOS, and you will not receive a refund of the Fees. If you look into the TOS even more, they basically disallow anything that's bandwidth intensive.
dalore 14y ago
He mentioned only one which was Amazon. It is expensive but it's doing more than serving 100tb. The S3 provides redundancy and cloud front provides edge delivery. Getting a server somewhere that has 100tb of outgoing is something different.
papsosouid 14y ago
None of the cheaper options I see there are comparable services. What danso was pointing out was that the service cloudfront was wanting $3000 costs $8000 elsewhere, it is not an unreasonable price. Getting maybe bandwidth from a sketchy dedicated server provider is not the same service as a content delivery network.

Uchikoma 14y ago

Hetzner is around $200 for 100TB with 1gbit.

Uchikoma 14y ago
The mentioned leaseweb is indeed cheaper $95 for a 100TB server, around $550 for an unmetered 1gbit server.
- thezilch 14y ago
  And do not provide comparable service to a CDN. The comparison is really apples and oranges.
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  @thezilch: My understanding from the article was that the poster wanted to deliver without load to his server, settled with 2 servers in NL and was not in for the CDN part.

byoung2 14y ago

S3 and Cloudfront are targeted at the dabbler, who will likely only be serving a GB or two per month, in which case S3 and Cloudfront would be pennies with no long term commitment. Once you move beyond that and are storing and serving more than 1 TB, you'd be better off with a monthly commitment.

imsofuture 14y ago
Just FYI, Cloudfront does heavily discount committed pricing.
- byoung2 14y ago
  True, but that starts at 10 TB/mo

RKearney 14y ago

You have to read the fine print though. Amazon CloudFront, while expensive, is designed for delivering content globally. Take 100TB for example (the first result in that Google Search) d. We strive to maintain a high level of service, and a lot of customers depend on our high standards of quality. As such, we will not provide Services to those that are using our Services for: vii. Using the Services for a content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN). An authorized CDN network offered through 100TB is accepted. Special requests to use the Services to run an unauthorized CDN network may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Failure to comply with this policy will result in termination of this TOS, and you will not receive a refund of the Fees. If you look into the TOS even more, they basically disallow anything that's bandwidth intensive.

dalore 14y ago

He mentioned only one which was Amazon. It is expensive but it's doing more than serving 100tb. The S3 provides redundancy and cloud front provides edge delivery. Getting a server somewhere that has 100tb of outgoing is something different.

papsosouid 14y ago

None of the cheaper options I see there are comparable services. What danso was pointing out was that the service cloudfront was wanting $3000 costs $8000 elsewhere, it is not an unreasonable price. Getting maybe bandwidth from a sketchy dedicated server provider is not the same service as a content delivery network.