6 ms·

The detailed pricing is at https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#nearline-pricing https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#nearline-pricing In short, if I'm

by omh 12y ago

The detailed pricing is at https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#nearline-pricing https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#nearline-pricing In short, if I'm understanding correctly: $0.01 per GB per month storage $0.01 per GB retrieval Normal egress fees on top, so additional ~$0.10 per GB if you want to retrieve outside of Google Cloud. Early deletion fee. Effectively just a minimum storage charge of 1 month. It seems this is cheaper than Glacier and quite a bit simpler. The speed restrictions are interesting though.

fuzzythinker 12y ago
Unless Glacier just changed their pricing, how is it cheaper and simpler? Glacier is also $.01/GB storage, but only $.09/GB retrieval, which is cheaper than google's $.12/GB. Glacier also comes with 1st GB retrieval free/mo.
- omh 12y ago
  Glacier have additional fees depending on how fast you retrieve the data. Honestly I'm not sure what they are because I've never had to use it, but my impression is that these fees could be quite high.
  - keysheath 12y ago
    At least with Glacier I get the option of retrieving faster. Nearline is going to take more than 3 DAYS to retrieve my data if I only have 1TB stored (3MB/s).
    - panarky 12y ago
      Let's assume that with Glacier you can retrieve your 1000 GB in 4 hours instead of 3 days. You will be surprised by a retrieval fee of 1000 / 4 * 720 * 0.01 = $1,800. If you want to get your 1000 GB for free, you'd have to request no more than 69 MB per hour. It will take you about 20 months to get your data! With Glacier, limit retrievals to less than 5% per month / 30 days / 24 hours = 0.007% of total data stored per hour to avoid these ugly surprises. Source: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retrieve_for_free http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retr...
    - moe 12y ago
      For many people waiting 3 days is more attractive than paying the ~$1000 that it would cost to retrieve it in one day from Glacier.
      - keysheath 12y ago
        For disaster recovery 3 days might mean the end of your business.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        For disaster recovery $1000 is peanuts, that's a company thing, GP mentioned 'people', not companies, different use-case.
        prirun 12y ago
        I wrote a backup program that uses Glacier, and the retrieval policies are nearly impossible to manage and explain. But the thing I really don't get is that you can use Amazon Import to read a hard drive into Glacier, but you can't use Amazon Export to get a drive full of data back out. You can with S3. In a disaster situation, a company is going to want hard drives sent to them next day. As others have mentioned, this isn't a money thing, it's a time issue. But it isn't available with Glacier (probably not with Google either...)
    - relate 12y ago
      If you're willing to pay more for faster retrieval I guess you could store e.g. 5TB of random data to get a fast "base speed"- cutting those 3 days down to 12 hours.
      - teraflop 12y ago
        That would be more expensive than just storing 1TB with the normal, full speed Cloud Storage service.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        Or use Nearline for archival data as well as disaster recovery. You won't need to transfer the archival data for normal disaster recovery scenarios, so it'll be -- for that scenario -- extra data that boosts your speed, but it's still, on its own, a useful use of the service.
  - Twirrim 12y ago
    They can be. It's possible to set a retrieval policy on your bucket either at free tier, or a fixed price point so you can control the cost of your final bill if you want to retrieve faster than the free tier
- kryps 12y ago
  Except for the Glacier retrieval fees which can be insane if you choose to retrieve more than 0.17% of your stored data per day. https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retrieve_for_free https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_ret...
  - t0mas88 12y ago
    But if you retrieve the same 1000 GB from Glacier in the same 3 days that Google takes you would pay a 98 dollar retrieval fee. And Amazon would charge 300 dollar less traffic cost ($ 0.09 vs $ 0.12 / GB for 1000 GB) so in the end Glacier is still 202 dollar cheaper AND allows you to retrieve the data much faster if you really have to at a certain price. So Google looks cheaper/simpler, but the amazon model is actually quite good for disaster recovery where you may be in a situation where you "need it now at any cost"
    - panarky 12y ago
      Internet egress for 1000 GB is $120 for Google and $90 for Amazon, a difference of $30 not $300.
- panarky 12y ago
  Glacier pricing is surprisingly complicated, and the actual cost can be much higher than $0.01 per GB-month if you don't read the fine print. The biggest gotcha is that you can only access 0.17% of the data you've stored in any given day without extra charges. So if you've stored 1000 GB, you can only access 1.7 GB per day for free. The cost for going over your daily "retrieval allowance" can be large, because cost is driven by "peak retrieval rate". They find the highest hourly retrieval rate over the entire month, and charge the whole month's retrieval at the peak rate. This can get expensive fast. Again, with 1000 GB stored, if you retrieve 200 GB over the course of 4 hours, your hourly retrieval rate is 200 GB / 4 hours = 50 GB per hour. Your free retrieval allowance is 1.7 GB per day / 24 hours = 0.07 GB / hour. So your excess retrieval is 49.93 GB per hour. Amazingly, that 49.93 GB per hour for 4 hours is charged for all 720 hours in the month, so that's 49.93 * 720 * 0.01 = $359.49. That's an astonishing $1.79 per GB just to retrieve one-fifth of the data from Glacier storage. So Glacier only makes sense for true cold storage, where you are very unlikely to touch more than 0.00007 of it in any given hour. Google's Nearline is much simpler and faster for the same storage cost -- and far cheaper if you need to access more than a tiny fraction of the data. Source: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retrieve_for_free http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retr...
  - AceJohnny2 12y ago
    Thanks for the detailed breakdown, that's really interesting! Sounds like you were bitten by this? :)
    - Siliticxx 12y ago
      Ok. I have to this to this. i'm sorry. I guess he would say he was... sunglasses FROSTBITTEN YEAH!
      - AceJohnny2 12y ago
        I understand, but please go stand in the corner there and think about what you've done.
    - 12y ago
- rsync 12y ago
  "Unless Glacier just changed their pricing, how is it cheaper and simpler? Glacier is also $.01/GB storage, but only $.09/GB retrieval, which is cheaper than google's $.12/GB. Glacier also comes with 1st GB retrieval free/mo." As long as we are comparing effective pricing, which is the only number that matters with Glacier and "Google Nearline" (and, to some degree, S3) it should be noted that rsync.net PB-scale is 3.0 cents with no additional charges. That is, the effective price, no matter what your use-case or traffic/usage, is 3.0 cents per GB.[1] Of course, you do have to buy a petabyte of it ... [1] http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html
  - jhgg 12y ago
    Not to nitpick, but your CEO page is a bit misleading. > "a two year contract is required." [1] > "There are no contracts, overages, fees, or license charges at rsync.net." [2] [1] http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html [2] http://rsync.net/products/ceopage.html http://rsync.net/products/ceopage.html

by omh 12y ago

fuzzythinker 12y ago

Unless Glacier just changed their pricing, how is it cheaper and simpler? Glacier is also $.01/GB storage, but only $.09/GB retrieval, which is cheaper than google's $.12/GB. Glacier also comes with 1st GB retrieval free/mo.

omh 12y ago
Glacier have additional fees depending on how fast you retrieve the data. Honestly I'm not sure what they are because I've never had to use it, but my impression is that these fees could be quite high.
- keysheath 12y ago
  At least with Glacier I get the option of retrieving faster. Nearline is going to take more than 3 DAYS to retrieve my data if I only have 1TB stored (3MB/s).
  - panarky 12y ago
    Let's assume that with Glacier you can retrieve your 1000 GB in 4 hours instead of 3 days. You will be surprised by a retrieval fee of 1000 / 4 * 720 * 0.01 = $1,800. If you want to get your 1000 GB for free, you'd have to request no more than 69 MB per hour. It will take you about 20 months to get your data! With Glacier, limit retrievals to less than 5% per month / 30 days / 24 hours = 0.007% of total data stored per hour to avoid these ugly surprises. Source: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retrieve_for_free http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retr...
  - moe 12y ago
    For many people waiting 3 days is more attractive than paying the ~$1000 that it would cost to retrieve it in one day from Glacier.
    - keysheath 12y ago
      For disaster recovery 3 days might mean the end of your business.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        For disaster recovery $1000 is peanuts, that's a company thing, GP mentioned 'people', not companies, different use-case.
        prirun 12y ago
        I wrote a backup program that uses Glacier, and the retrieval policies are nearly impossible to manage and explain. But the thing I really don't get is that you can use Amazon Import to read a hard drive into Glacier, but you can't use Amazon Export to get a drive full of data back out. You can with S3. In a disaster situation, a company is going to want hard drives sent to them next day. As others have mentioned, this isn't a money thing, it's a time issue. But it isn't available with Glacier (probably not with Google either...)
  - relate 12y ago
    If you're willing to pay more for faster retrieval I guess you could store e.g. 5TB of random data to get a fast "base speed"- cutting those 3 days down to 12 hours.
    - teraflop 12y ago
      That would be more expensive than just storing 1TB with the normal, full speed Cloud Storage service.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Or use Nearline for archival data as well as disaster recovery. You won't need to transfer the archival data for normal disaster recovery scenarios, so it'll be -- for that scenario -- extra data that boosts your speed, but it's still, on its own, a useful use of the service.
- Twirrim 12y ago
  They can be. It's possible to set a retrieval policy on your bucket either at free tier, or a fixed price point so you can control the cost of your final bill if you want to retrieve faster than the free tier
kryps 12y ago
Except for the Glacier retrieval fees which can be insane if you choose to retrieve more than 0.17% of your stored data per day. https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retrieve_for_free https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_ret...
- t0mas88 12y ago
  But if you retrieve the same 1000 GB from Glacier in the same 3 days that Google takes you would pay a 98 dollar retrieval fee. And Amazon would charge 300 dollar less traffic cost ($ 0.09 vs $ 0.12 / GB for 1000 GB) so in the end Glacier is still 202 dollar cheaper AND allows you to retrieve the data much faster if you really have to at a certain price. So Google looks cheaper/simpler, but the amazon model is actually quite good for disaster recovery where you may be in a situation where you "need it now at any cost"
  - panarky 12y ago
    Internet egress for 1000 GB is $120 for Google and $90 for Amazon, a difference of $30 not $300.
panarky 12y ago
Glacier pricing is surprisingly complicated, and the actual cost can be much higher than $0.01 per GB-month if you don't read the fine print. The biggest gotcha is that you can only access 0.17% of the data you've stored in any given day without extra charges. So if you've stored 1000 GB, you can only access 1.7 GB per day for free. The cost for going over your daily "retrieval allowance" can be large, because cost is driven by "peak retrieval rate". They find the highest hourly retrieval rate over the entire month, and charge the whole month's retrieval at the peak rate. This can get expensive fast. Again, with 1000 GB stored, if you retrieve 200 GB over the course of 4 hours, your hourly retrieval rate is 200 GB / 4 hours = 50 GB per hour. Your free retrieval allowance is 1.7 GB per day / 24 hours = 0.07 GB / hour. So your excess retrieval is 49.93 GB per hour. Amazingly, that 49.93 GB per hour for 4 hours is charged for all 720 hours in the month, so that's 49.93 * 720 * 0.01 = $359.49. That's an astonishing $1.79 per GB just to retrieve one-fifth of the data from Glacier storage. So Glacier only makes sense for true cold storage, where you are very unlikely to touch more than 0.00007 of it in any given hour. Google's Nearline is much simpler and faster for the same storage cost -- and far cheaper if you need to access more than a tiny fraction of the data. Source: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retrieve_for_free http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_retr...
- AceJohnny2 12y ago
  Thanks for the detailed breakdown, that's really interesting! Sounds like you were bitten by this? :)
  - Siliticxx 12y ago
    Ok. I have to this to this. i'm sorry. I guess he would say he was... sunglasses FROSTBITTEN YEAH!
    - AceJohnny2 12y ago
      I understand, but please go stand in the corner there and think about what you've done.
  - 12y ago
rsync 12y ago
"Unless Glacier just changed their pricing, how is it cheaper and simpler? Glacier is also $.01/GB storage, but only $.09/GB retrieval, which is cheaper than google's $.12/GB. Glacier also comes with 1st GB retrieval free/mo." As long as we are comparing effective pricing, which is the only number that matters with Glacier and "Google Nearline" (and, to some degree, S3) it should be noted that rsync.net PB-scale is 3.0 cents with no additional charges. That is, the effective price, no matter what your use-case or traffic/usage, is 3.0 cents per GB.[1] Of course, you do have to buy a petabyte of it ... [1] http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html
- jhgg 12y ago
  Not to nitpick, but your CEO page is a bit misleading. > "a two year contract is required." [1] > "There are no contracts, overages, fees, or license charges at rsync.net." [2] [1] http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html http://www.rsync.net/products/petabyte.html [2] http://rsync.net/products/ceopage.html http://rsync.net/products/ceopage.html