Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah, it depends on use case. For business use cases in the event of a big issue / local data loss - $1,000 range might be a rounding error - that's def who they are targeting.

For 40 TB range stuff I've benchmarked some of the free / unlimited options and I'm not sure you could really get data back out and local that efficiently? It's still a week with AWS though as well.

One note - ingress to AWS is free - so if your job model is mostly writing into AWS, with a once every 5 years extract - the overall cost per GB transferred may not be that bad.

rsync.net is 2 cents per GB/month.

AWS glacier and deep glacier are .4 and .1 cents per GB/month. Free ingress. 40TB on AWS + ingress = $40/month.

A lot of the "outrage" on HN around AWS pricing is not necessarily looking at total costs of solutions AWS offers.

The other things - AWS offers fully transparent pricing.

Even folks like cloudflare - folks say it's an unlimited CDN for $200/month. No it's not.

"Use of the Service for the storage or caching of video (unless purchased separately as a Paid Service) or a disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content, is prohibited."

For business - they like the clarity / simplicity of AWS. For bigger data you can backup locally and have your offsite be AWS - hopefully never to use it or pay the ship out expense.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: