4 ms·

For anyone planning to use google cloud storage as an s3/cloudfront alternative to host public content, pay close attention to request pricing. Retrieving an ob

For anyone planning to use google cloud storage as an s3/cloudfront alternative to host public content, pay close attention to request pricing. Retrieving an object through its HTTP url is considered a class B XML request type by Google Cloud Storage. That is 1.3x - 2.5x times more expensive than cloudfront and s3 respectively.

Kudos 13y ago
I don't understand why people expose files they expect to receive significant traffic on public buckets, instead of using a caching reverse proxy from somewhere with cheaper data transfer rates.
- boundlessdreamz 13y ago
  That's another point of failure. One of the use cases of cloud storage is serving static assets. "a developer could store and host media and other static assets for a web game in Google Cloud Storage". https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/faq#services https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/faq#services Due to their request pricing, serving static assets is significantly costlier than cloudfront since storage costs tend to be minimal
- CoffeeDregs 13y ago
  Agreed. Especially when they can get a giant Google-sized, caching reverse proxy (CDN) simply by setting cache headers appropriately. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5617322/how-to-enable-caching-with-gae http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5617322/how-to-enable-cac...
  - boundlessdreamz 13y ago
    How does that help when your content is in Cloud Storage? Is there an app which serves content out of Cloud Storage and runs on app engine? (I haven't worked with app engine) You can set caching headers on Cloud Storage also. But that doesn't help when 1. you have a large number of requests with cold cache 2. want the flexibility to keep cache time small. Unlike cloudfront there is no purge method in GCS. GCS doesn't guarantee to serve new versions until the old one's cache time has expired.
- driverdan 13y ago
  Since Amazon has a CDN baked in (CloudFront) you just use that. If you have enough volume you can negotiate lower prices.

Kudos 13y ago

I don't understand why people expose files they expect to receive significant traffic on public buckets, instead of using a caching reverse proxy from somewhere with cheaper data transfer rates.

boundlessdreamz 13y ago
That's another point of failure. One of the use cases of cloud storage is serving static assets. "a developer could store and host media and other static assets for a web game in Google Cloud Storage". https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/faq#services https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/faq#services Due to their request pricing, serving static assets is significantly costlier than cloudfront since storage costs tend to be minimal
CoffeeDregs 13y ago
Agreed. Especially when they can get a giant Google-sized, caching reverse proxy (CDN) simply by setting cache headers appropriately. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5617322/how-to-enable-caching-with-gae http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5617322/how-to-enable-cac...
- boundlessdreamz 13y ago
  How does that help when your content is in Cloud Storage? Is there an app which serves content out of Cloud Storage and runs on app engine? (I haven't worked with app engine) You can set caching headers on Cloud Storage also. But that doesn't help when 1. you have a large number of requests with cold cache 2. want the flexibility to keep cache time small. Unlike cloudfront there is no purge method in GCS. GCS doesn't guarantee to serve new versions until the old one's cache time has expired.
driverdan 13y ago
Since Amazon has a CDN baked in (CloudFront) you just use that. If you have enough volume you can negotiate lower prices.