3 ms·

I'm not sure who this is targeting. As a (very) small-scale user of S3 I hardly pay anything per month and would not even consider switching. Large companies o

by rheide 13y ago

I'm not sure who this is targeting. As a (very) small-scale user of S3 I hardly pay anything per month and would not even consider switching. Large companies on the other hand need to have the reliability and security of a big name behind the storage. Why would they even consider moving to a no-name company that hasn't proven itself? Sorry, it just seems like the wrong niche to step in to.

pgroves 13y ago
I'm actually facing a decision right now in building a new app that has relatively heavy needs for data storage and number crunching. Each paying customer would have a relatively large amount of data per person compared to your average CRUD app. I'd like to use DigitalOcean or Linode VPS machines for processing and as web servers, but then I need a large object store like S3. Rackspace and AWS have both object storage and VPS, but their VPS machines are underpowered for the price. So ideally I would use Rackspace-Files or Amazon-S3 for storage, and DigitalOcean for number crunching, but I'd get killed on transfer rates from S3 to DigitalOcean (for example). Amazon and Rackspace have a trump card with free data transfer within their data centers. You have to use their slow machines to realistically use their object stores in this type of a use case. So that's the 'S3' problem I need solved, which still isn't quite what S3ForMe is going after. Extremely cheap data transfers to/from major VPS providers.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  Why not use Rackspace-Files and get dedicated servers from Rackspace? That would solve your transfer rate issue and likely get you far better performance than Linode or DigitalOcean.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Because dedicated servers from Rackspace are expensive.
    - danielparks 13y ago
      I've been happy with unmanaged servers from Incero. Their severs use ECC RAM, their support seems competent, and they offer buy-down prices for things like RAM. Back to pgrove's point, though — there are trade offs with using a dedicated server. The storage isn't as reliable as S3 and the server itself is likely less reliable than a VPS (since some hardware problems on a VPS can be solved by migrating to new hardware and only involve a small downtime, rather than the large downtime of restoring from backup). A major advantage to dedicated servers that I don't hear much about is simplicity. Dropping everything on a dedicated server means I can use local services like the file system rather than having to deal with S3 and latency and bandwidth costs. Edit: I just realized that the idea was to use Rackspace files + one of their servers rather than S3 + EC2. Somehow I missed that bit and was thinking about just storing everything on the dedicated server.

by rheide 13y ago

pgroves 13y ago

I'm actually facing a decision right now in building a new app that has relatively heavy needs for data storage and number crunching. Each paying customer would have a relatively large amount of data per person compared to your average CRUD app. I'd like to use DigitalOcean or Linode VPS machines for processing and as web servers, but then I need a large object store like S3. Rackspace and AWS have both object storage and VPS, but their VPS machines are underpowered for the price. So ideally I would use Rackspace-Files or Amazon-S3 for storage, and DigitalOcean for number crunching, but I'd get killed on transfer rates from S3 to DigitalOcean (for example). Amazon and Rackspace have a trump card with free data transfer within their data centers. You have to use their slow machines to realistically use their object stores in this type of a use case. So that's the 'S3' problem I need solved, which still isn't quite what S3ForMe is going after. Extremely cheap data transfers to/from major VPS providers.

gaadd33 13y ago
Why not use Rackspace-Files and get dedicated servers from Rackspace? That would solve your transfer rate issue and likely get you far better performance than Linode or DigitalOcean.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Because dedicated servers from Rackspace are expensive.
  - danielparks 13y ago
    I've been happy with unmanaged servers from Incero. Their severs use ECC RAM, their support seems competent, and they offer buy-down prices for things like RAM. Back to pgrove's point, though — there are trade offs with using a dedicated server. The storage isn't as reliable as S3 and the server itself is likely less reliable than a VPS (since some hardware problems on a VPS can be solved by migrating to new hardware and only involve a small downtime, rather than the large downtime of restoring from backup). A major advantage to dedicated servers that I don't hear much about is simplicity. Dropping everything on a dedicated server means I can use local services like the file system rather than having to deal with S3 and latency and bandwidth costs. Edit: I just realized that the idea was to use Rackspace files + one of their servers rather than S3 + EC2. Somehow I missed that bit and was thinking about just storing everything on the dedicated server.