←back to thread

From S3 to R2: An economic opportunity

(dansdatathoughts.substack.com)
274 points dangoldin | 4 comments | 02 Nov 23 19:15 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
meowface ◴[02 Nov 23 20:22 UTC] No.38119562[source]▶
Is there any reason to not use R2 over a competing storage service? I already use Cloudflare for lots of other things, and don't personally care all that much about the "Cloudflare's near-monopoly as a web intermediary is dangerous" arguments or anything like that.
replies(10): >>38120515 #>>38120628 #>>38120667 #>>38121777 #>>38121809 #>>38121833 #>>38121902 #>>38124987 #>>38126101 #>>38126111 #
1. Hasz ◴[02 Nov 23 21:34 UTC] No.38120515[source]▶
As far as I know, R2 offers no storage tiers. Most of my s3 usage is archival and sits in glacier. From Cloudflare's pricing page, S3 is substantially cheaper for that type of workload.
replies(1): >>38124971 #
2. thrtythreeforty ◴[03 Nov 23 05:41 UTC] No.38124971[source]▶
I know people archive all kinds of data. I use Glacier as off-site backup for my measly 1TB of irreplaceable data. But I know many customers put petabytes in it.

What could you have a petabyte of that you're pretty sure you'll never need again? What kind of datasets are you storing?

replies(2): >>38126085 #>>38133854 #
3. Dylan16807 ◴[03 Nov 23 08:50 UTC] No.38126085[source]▶
> pretty sure you'll never need again?

It doesn't have to be nearly that stark.

If we factor out egress, since it's the same for everything, the bulk retrieval cost for glacier deep archive is only $2.50/TB.

That means that a full year of storage ($12) plus four retrievals ($10) is roughly the same price as a single month of normal S3 storage ($23).

4. Hasz ◴[03 Nov 23 19:29 UTC] No.38133854[source]▶
long term work stuff. Things we would be contractually obligated to produce many years down the line.

Plenty of other people storing images, video, etc. a PB is really not that much stuff when it's not just for personal consumption.