5 ms·

very cool repository, found the S3 data here: https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Internal%20Metrics/System%20AWS%20Costs%20(S3%20TiB%2

very cool repository, found the S3 data here: https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Internal%20Metrics/System%20AWS%20Costs%20(S3%20TiB%20per%20Month).csv https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/... So basically at their peak, they had ~174TB S3 and ~47TB S3 RRS. That month cost them ~$16.2k, whereas after April 1 they could have put everything in S3 for ~$6.7k. That's a big difference, but they were still getting taken to the cleaners over some other services like RDS.

opendais 13y ago
Cool. So they had roughly (with rounding): RRS: 2+3+6+8+9+18+19+22+27+34+42+48+7=~245 TB/months=~ Normal: 7+9+13+19+24+46+56+65+76+95+123+153+174+25=~885 TB/months Difference: $0.085-$0.0300=$0.055 $0.068-$0.0240=$0.044 End: 0.055 * 885 * 1024=$49,843 0.044 * 245 * 1024=$11,039 $49,843+$11,039=~$60k saved which is 20% of what they were short, if they had started with April 1st's pricing. If you can reduce the AWS $400k by 40% due to the reduced pricing for EC2, you'd still fall short.
hrrsn 13y ago
Why wouldn't they put all of that in a Backblaze Storage Pod? 2 months of AWS costs could've built more than 2 pods and stored everything with plenty of space to spare.
- tiquorsj 13y ago
  Price out the backup solution for that back blaze. Then make the backblaze geograohiclly redundant. Then write the system to keep them in sync. Then add versioning. Then pay for someone to manage it. Now you are getting towards the real cost of that backblaze to replace S3.
  - herokusaki 13y ago
    >Then write the system to keep them in sync. Then add versioning. Are there any ready-to-deploy solutions for this?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]