![]() ![]() ![]() The test uploads a 700MB backup, downloads it and rebuilds a database, then removes it. Here's a test I recently ran comparing S3, B2, and Storj. ![]() While I agree than S3 performance is generally better than B2, I personally have not seen a 10x difference in egress performance. I'm author of HashBackup and regularly run performance comparisons between object storage services. I can tell you one thing: R2 with free bandwidth is going to be a gift for the porn industry! Now if it were half their users doing it, of course they would. If that last guy was paying for that space with B2, it would cost $2150/month. While IMO they are misusing the service, they are also an extreme minority. Interestingly, on that same histogram, are the last 2 customers: one using 293TB and one using 430TB. Way more than half of their unlimited customers are paying 4x more for unlimited storage than they would if they paid for metered storage. On B2, their cloud storage product, $6 will buy 1.2TB of storage. So ~55% of their customers are using <300GB and paying $6/mo. One of their execs (Brian) posted a graph showing a backup space utilization histogram for all customers in 2018. I am excited to try it.Īt high request volumes there would be a per-operation charges, so not exactly free.īackblaze (the consumer thing, not B2) has always had unlimited backups, and still does. So R2 just becomes a no-brainer at that point. And the reality is many people are already using Cloudflare as CDN in front of S3 storage. CDN/edge locations are all extra cost via AWS Cloudfront. S3 requires me to select a region and optionally even limit an availability zone (if I need to keep costs low). I think the auto-migration feature is potentially one of the best arguments for switching to R2. But we feel the effect of vendor lock-in because of S3's integration with other AWS services, which is what keeps a lot of people over-paying for S3. There are many other providers that offer comparable solutions (or even superior) such as the new R2. I am an AWS administrator/architect for work so we are always trying to weigh pros and cons. While it is understandable that archival storage is unique (it is tape storage), the others just seem arbitrary and unnecessary. S3 technically has 7 storage tiers, with all permutations of limited availability zone, reduced redundancy, infrequent access, archival storage, etc. In other words you don't really distinguish between storage tiers. After I wrote that statement about Infrequent Access, I was thinking about it more and realized that you probably pay for storage but simply have no access fees. does that mean that I can throw files onto R2 for archive purposes and not pay anything? Because that is what it sounds like by that statement, but it obviously sounds impractical or too good to be true. I also don't know what to think about the statement that they plan to make infrequent access completely free. ![]() While it is noteworthy that GCP (Google Cloud Provider) and Microsoft Azure are part of this alliance, AWS is not! So does this mean that egress fees will be charged if an AWS server requests the file? It also states earlier in the press release that the free egress frees are offered via the "Bandwidth Alliance", which removes bandwidth charges between member providers. It says they "plan to", so we don't know if this is near term or some moonshot type of goal. > That's why Cloudflare plans to eliminate egress fees, deliver object storage that is at least 10% cheaper than S3, and make infrequent access completely free for customersĪ few elements of concern. According to their press release it says: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |