Would really like to see some massive reductions in the operation costs and most importantly, bandwidth costs.<p>The bandwidth costs are so far out of line with what the network transfer actually costs, it just feels like price fixing between the major cloud players that nobody is drastically reducing those prices, only storage prices.<p>Charging 5 cents per gigabyte (at their maximum published discount level) is the equivalent to paying $16,000 per month for a 1 gigabit line. This does not count any operation costs either, which could add thousands in cost as well, depending on how you are using S3.<p>There are several providers that offer a unmetered 1gbps line PLUS a dedicated server for ~600-750/mo.
Providers like OVH offer the bandwidth for as little as 100/month. ( <a href="https://www.ovh.com/us/dedicated-servers/bandwidth-upgrade.xml" rel="nofollow">https://www.ovh.com/us/dedicated-servers/bandwidth-upgrade.x...</a> ) I am just not sure how amazon can justify a 160x price increase over OVH or a 30x increase over dedicated server + transfer.<p>For the time being, the best bet is to use S3 for your storage and then have a heavily caching non amazon CDN on top of it (like cloudflare) to save the ridiculous bandwidth costs.
Well, the costs are nicer, but mostly, Glacier goes from an unusable pricing model to a usable one. I was terrified to use Glacier. The previous model, if you made requests too rapidly, you might be hit with thousands of dollars of bills for relatively small data retrievals -- very easy to make a very expensive bug.<p>I had wanted Amazon to wrap it in something where they managed that complexity for a long time. Looks like they finally did.<p>Now the only thing Amazon needs to do is expand free tiers on all of their services, or at least very low cost ones. I prototype a lot of things from home for work -- kinda 20% time style projects where I couldn't really budget resources for it. The free tier is great for that. All services ought to have it -- especially RDS. I ought to be able to have a slice of a database (even kilobytes/tens of accesses/not-guaranteed security/shared server) paying nothing or pennies.
While I'm not going to complain about a price reduction, I'd honestly be more excited if S3 implemented support for additional headers and redirect rules. Right now, anyone hosting a single page app (e.g. Angular/React) behind S3 and Cloudfront is going to get an F on securityheaders.io.<p>And even worse, there is no way to prerender an SPA site for search engines without standing up an nginx proxy on ec2, which completely eliminates almost all of the benefits from Cloudfront. This is because right now S3 can only redirect based on a key prefix or error code, not based on a user agent like Googlebot or whatever.<p>This means that even if you can technically drop a <meta name="fragment" content="!"> tag in your front end and then have S3 redirect on the key prefix '?_escaped_fragment_=', that will be a 301 redirect. This means that Google will ignore any <link rel="canonical" href="..."> tag on the prerendered page and will instead index <a href="https://api.yoursite.com" rel="nofollow">https://api.yoursite.com</a> or wherever your prerendered content is being hosted rather than your actual site.<p>Not only is it a bunch of extra work to stand up an nginx proxy as a workaround, but it's also a whole extra set of security concerns, scaling concerns, etc. Not a good situation.<p>edit: For more info on the prerendering issues, c.f.:<p><a href="https://github.com/prerender/prerender/issues/93" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/prerender/prerender/issues/93</a><p><a href="https://gist.github.com/thoop/8165802" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/thoop/8165802</a>
Is anyone using either S3 or Glacier to store encrypted backups of their personal computer(s)? I've only used Time Machine to back up my machine for a long time, but I don't really trust it and would like to have another back up in the cloud. Any tools that automate back up and restore to/from S3/Glacier? What are your experiences?
This a really dumb question, but since I've never used Glacier what does the workflow for a Glacier application look like? I'm used to the world of immediate access needs, and fast API responses, so I can't imagine sending off a request to an API with a response "Your data will be ready in 1-5 hours, come back later".
What is the mechanism that makes it cheaper to take longer getting data out? Is it that they save money on a lower-throughput interface to the storage? Is it simply just market segmentation?
I currently use S3 Infrequent Access buckets for some personal projects. These Glacier price reductions, along with the much better retrieval model look really great.<p>However using Glacier as a simple store from the command-line seems horribly convoluted:<p><a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/userguide/cli-using-glacier.html" rel="nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/userguide/cli-using-g...</a><p>Does anyone know of any good tooling around Glacier for the command line?
Has anyone tried to migrate to Backblaze. Their pricing seems really aggressive but I am not sure if we can compare Amazon and Backblaze when it comes to reliability.<p><a href="https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html</a>
Anyone else finding their S3 bill consisting of mostly PUT/COPY/POST/LIST queries? Our service has a ton of data going in, very little going out and we're sitting with 95% of the bill being P/C/P/L queries and only the remaining 5% being storage.<p>Either way, good news on the storage price reductions :)
Great discount. I'm only surprised that Infrequent Access doesn't get any discount.<p>By the way, I wrote article, how to reduce S3 costs:
<a href="https://www.sumologic.com/aws/s3/s3-cost-optimization/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sumologic.com/aws/s3/s3-cost-optimization/</a>
Do we know now how Glacier actually works? Tape robots, spun-down disks, racks of optical media?<p>Best source I could find was: <a href="https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-secret-bdxl/" rel="nofollow">https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-secret-bd...</a>
Any chance Google will match this price for their coldline storage? I was planning to archive a few TBs in Google coldline, but Glacier is now cheaper and has a sane retrieval pricing model.
> For example, retrieving 500 archives that are 1 GB each would cost 500GB x $0.01 + 500 x $0.05/1,000 = $5.25<p>Shouldn't that be $5.025? Or did I misunderstand?
In our startup, the biggest cost is bandwidth. We live in an age where videos can be created and streamed in seconds to millions of people. With so high cost for bandwidth, it's very difficult for bootstrapped startups to grow as quickly as those who raise VC funding. I hope AWS can reduce the outgoing bandwidth cost by 50%.
<i>EDIT:</i> My mistake, this is the new S3 pricing! NOT Glacier pricing! Thank you res0nat0r.<p>Am I understanding this right? $0.023/GB/month for Glacier, so * 12 months/year = $0.276/GB/year, which means:<p><pre><code> 10GB = $2.70/year
100GB = $27.00/year
1TB = $270.00/year
...
</code></pre>
And this is only the <i>storage</i> cost. This doesn't take into account the cost should you actually decise to retrieve the data.<p>So considering a 1TB hard drive [0] costs $50.00, how is this cost effective? I can buy 5x1TB hard drives for the price of 1TB on Glacier.<p>I understand there is overhead to managing it yourself. So, is this just not targeted to technically proficient folks?<p>[0] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Blue-Cache-Desktop-Drive-WD10EZEX/dp/B0088PUEPK" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Blue-Cache-Desktop-Drive-WD10EZEX/dp/...</a>
If costs matter to you, e.g. for home backups, don't buy Glacier (and <i>heck</i> don't buy S3). A 3TB drive costs about 110eur, so if you'd have to buy a new one every year (you don't) that'd cost 110/3/1000/12=0.31 cents per gigabyte per month. Glacier? 7 times more expensive at 2.3ct.<p>Hardware is usually not a business' main cost but it does matter for home users, small businesses or startups that didn't get funded yet, some of whom might consider Tarsnap or some other online storage solution which uses Glacier at best and S3 at worst. Now you could suddenly be 7× cheaper off if you do upkeep yourself (read: buy a raspberry pi) and if you throw away drives after one year.
That's both a good and a terrible change.<p>- The price reduction on S3 is good! Kudos AWS.<p>- The price change on glacier is a fucking disaster. They replaced the _single_ expensive glacier fee with the choice among 3 user selectable fee models (Standard, Expedited, Bulk). It's an absolute nightmare added on top of the current nightmare (e.g. try to understand the disks specifications & pricing. It takes months of learning).<p>I cannot follow the changes, too complicated. I cannot train my devs to understand glacier either, too much of a mess.<p>AWS if you read this: Please make your offers and your pricing simpler, NEVER more complicated.<p>(Even a single pricing option would be significantly better than that, even if its more expensive.)