Wasabi charges for three months worth of object retention, including overwrites.Storj charges extra “Per Segment” fees that add up quickly if you’re storing lots of small objects.Backblaze B2 data needs to be replicated and paid for twice over to meet data redundancy requirements that some projects need.While the pricing of the storage-only providers is attractive, they come with “gotchas” of their own: In addition, like Digital Ocean, Cloudflare R2, and Linode, some package together data transfer with standard storage in their pricing or offer it for free. The specialized providers tend to have better data transfer fees.
On the other hand, the specialized (i.e., storage-only) providers are much much cheaper, sometimes at under 30% of the cost of Amazon S3 for standard storage, like: There’s a bucket of broad-based but lower-cost providers that mete out at about 50-90% the cost of Amazon S3 ($21-23/TB/mo) for standard storage.
Backblaze cloudflare code#
If you’re lucky in this case, your engineers have a habit of wrapping code to make it agnostic. If an engineer enabled accelerated code on your storage and then has to swap that out, then it’s not codeless migration to any one of these specialized providers, which in turn impacts your TCO.
For example, S3 Transfer Acceleration won’t be compatible with another provider because AWS uses proprietary algorithms to reroute data rapidly within AWS. Several specialized services related to S3 would be hard to run without the AWS backbone (i.e., where you pull from or how you transit data). Generally, the most significant differences between Amazon’s native API and other implementations revolve around concurrency and data transfer. Others don’t have a specialized endpoint, so they try to make their native endpoint look as much as possible, like Amazon S3’s API. For example, some vendors put up endpoints that can take S3-like requests and convert them to native requests for their platform. Several standard implementations of the S3 API have significant differences between them in compliance with the S3 standard. To be fair, most vendors have done a decent job implementing the core components of the S3 API, but it's imperative to know if they cover what you need that isn’t core. And generally, you will always have to rewrite some stuff to make things work, no matter how “100%” compatible the vendor’s S3 API is.įor example, looking at one specific aspect of the S3 API, Amazon S3 has plenty of settings on the S3 Multi-part Upload configuration that we find are rarely consistent with anyone else’s implementation of the S3 API. Want pre-signed URLs for your customers to upload straight to your storage safely? Unfortunately, you’re not in luck with Wasabi, or Backblaze B2. In some cases, saving on the total cost of storage makes it worth it. To use a non-native storage service, you’ll have to pay for the additional egress and engineering time it takes to integrate. Integration with other services is the most significant advantage of the big cloud storage providers like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud Platform.Īre you doing anything other than storing and serving files? Are you analyzing your unstructured data with Amazon Athena or Google BigQuery? Low-cost providers might end up being more expensive. Gotchas of Every Single Low-Cost Object Storage Provider
Object storage providers are hungry to take Amazon S3’s market share. While I’m probably on some retargeting list, the point remains: They were adamant, “we’re 1/5 the price of Amazon S3.” I don’t know how they do it, but Wasabi took up 8 out of 16 display ad slots on the page. Interviewed CTOs and engineering managersĭon’t ask me why, but I took off my adblock the other day.Mapped every object storage feature in a massive matrix.Vendors are Promising 80%+ Savings on Object Storage Compared To Amazon S3.
0 kommentar(er)
