TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Tell HN: Cloudflare R2 allows 300PB of egress for chump change

66 点作者 truetraveller超过 2 年前
In their official example, 300PB for $104. Cloudflare only charge for the cost of GET operations. Actual &quot;bandwidth&quot; is free. For comparison, Amazon S3 is $90&#x2F;TB. So, the equivalent cost would be 300,000TB x $90= $27 million.<p>What is the catch? Am I missing something?<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developers.cloudflare.com&#x2F;r2&#x2F;platform&#x2F;pricing&#x2F;

8 条评论

outworlder超过 2 年前
See also: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cloudflare.com&#x2F;bandwidth-alliance&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cloudflare.com&#x2F;bandwidth-alliance&#x2F;</a><p>Vendors listed there have pretty competitive pricing for bandwidth.<p>I find many AWS services to be priced decently (if you are using them properly, elastically scaling, etc). But that&#x27;s definitely not the case for bandwidth. AZ to AZ charges are one of the worst - yes that&#x27;s cheaper than egress but that&#x27;s no consolation because you are essentially required to use multiple AZs if your business actually has any availability requirements.<p>And don&#x27;t get me started on NAT Gateway pricing...
评论 #33339525 未加载
评论 #33338176 未加载
tiernano超过 2 年前
You are missing the class b charges. Total would be $234.90 which is still slightly less than 27 million...
评论 #33338159 未加载
评论 #33337230 未加载
ignoramous超过 2 年前
&gt; <i>What is the catch? Am I missing something?</i><p>Some say, Cloudflare throws the ToS rule-book at you once you cross 5TB&#x2F;mo (or whatever the threshold is; we&#x27;re at multiple-TBs but no one from Cloudflare has thrown as much as an email at us). That said, Cloudflare&#x27;s absurdly high bandwidth rates for Specturm (their L4 load balancer) [0] remains a mystery.<p>Pretty recently, Cloudflare blogged about AWS&#x27; potential 80x markup on egress [1]. That is, the $90&#x2F;TB AWS charges its customers must cost them a measly $1 or so.<p>Cloudflare in 2014 blogged about how they work relentlessly to bring down bandwidth costs by peering aggressively where possible [2] (which apparently means $0 for <i>unlimited</i> bandwidth [3]). And where they can&#x27;t &#x2F; don&#x27;t [4], egress is 5x (est) the ingress (one pays for the higher among the two), but this creates an opportunity for an arbitrage and give away DDoS protection for free.<p>This is pretty similar to Amazon&#x27;s free-shipping offer for <i>Prime</i> customers despite it being one of the biggest loss makers to their retail business. <i>Prime</i> basically has since forced Amazon to bring down costs through building expensive and vast distribution &amp; logistics network that spawns the globe. Doing so was a considerable drain on the resources in the short-run, but in the long run, it has become an unbreachable moat around its largest business.<p>Analysts like Ben Thompson (stratechery.com) and Matthew Eash (hhhypergrowth.com) have written in detail about Cloudflare&#x27;s modus operandii over the years, with both agreeing that Cloudflare&#x27;s model is so brilliantly disruptive that even Clayton Christensen would be proud of it.<p>[0] $1&#x2F;GB! <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.cloudflare.com&#x2F;hc&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;articles&#x2F;360041721872-Billing-for-Spectrum" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.cloudflare.com&#x2F;hc&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;articles&#x2F;36004172187...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.cloudflare.com&#x2F;aws-egregious-egress&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.cloudflare.com&#x2F;aws-egregious-egress&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.cloudflare.com&#x2F;the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.cloudflare.com&#x2F;the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-a...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cloudflare.com&#x2F;bandwidth-alliance&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cloudflare.com&#x2F;bandwidth-alliance&#x2F;</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bgpview.io&#x2F;asn&#x2F;13335#info" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bgpview.io&#x2F;asn&#x2F;13335#info</a>
评论 #33337444 未加载
评论 #33338230 未加载
Matheus28超过 2 年前
AWS overcharges extremely for bandwidth. But yes, I&#x27;d expect that much bandwidth to cost at least around $1m on most providers. If you end up using THAT much bandwidth with so few GET requests, expect a call from CloudFlare.
评论 #33338195 未加载
CherryJimbo超过 2 年前
You would almost certainly have to be paying for an ENT agreement before you got anywhere close to 300PB of traffic, which would incur bandwidth fees.<p>It&#x27;d still be significantly less than $27 million though.
评论 #33338184 未加载
Matheus28超过 2 年前
It seems that they updated their docs just one hour ago to a 100 KB object instead of 1 GB.
评论 #33347428 未加载
supermatt超过 2 年前
I really like the idea of using R2, but it seems like theres no real protection against losing EVERYTHING should a write-enabled key get leaked? On S3, I would be able to set a versioned bucket and prevent deletions, for example.<p>What are others using R2 for? A &quot;cached&quot; version of your s3 buckets? Im assuming I could set up something like that with workers?
评论 #33337218 未加载
Gigachad超过 2 年前
Tbh I wouldn’t trust cloudflare to host anything with their current history.
评论 #33361232 未加载