←back to thread

From S3 to R2: An economic opportunity

(dansdatathoughts.substack.com)
274 points dangoldin | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.054s | source
Show context
meowface ◴[] 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 #
Voloskaya ◴[] No.38121777[source]
I don't know about R2 specifically, but we migrated one of our service from S3 to Cloudflare Images, and we have been hit with over 40h+ of down time on CF's side over the last 30 days. One of the outage was 22 hours long. Today's outage has been ongoing for almost 12 hours and is still ongoing, and we have had 2 or 3 others >1h outages.

Every cloud provider has outages sometimes but CF has been horrendous.

We were actually planning on migrating some other parts to R2 but we are just ditching CF altogether and just going to pay a bit more on AWS for reliability.

So if R2 has been impacted even a third as much as CF images, that would definitely be an important consideration.

replies(2): >>38122167 #>>38124225 #
csomar ◴[] No.38124225[source]
I don’t know why this isn’t mentioned more. CF offering (R2/workers/pages) are extremely unreliable that I’m wondering if anyone is actually using them.
replies(1): >>38125982 #
jpgvm ◴[] No.38125982{3}[source]
We are using Workers for ~12mo now with actually very little actual downtime. There have been some regional issues but no world wide outages.

That said we don't use any queues, KV, etc. Just pure JS isolates so that probably contributes to the robustness.

We do use the Cache API though and have ran into weirdness there. We also needed to implement our own Stale-While-Revalidate (SWR) because CF still refuses to implement this properly.

Overall CF is a provider that I would say we begrudging acknowledge as good. Stuff like the SWR thing can be really frustrating but overall reliability and performance are much better since moving to CF.

replies(1): >>38127761 #
1. csomar ◴[] No.38127761{4}[source]
> Overall CF is a provider that I would say we begrudging acknowledge as good.

I don't understand. You say that you used a very small subset of their offering in a very specific and limited way; and with that you conclude that their offering is "good"? Shouldn't you make that conclusion after reviewing at least 50% of their offering?

replies(1): >>38136042 #
2. jpgvm ◴[] No.38136042[source]
All of those extra features aren't their offering. Their offering is their network, everything else is just icing.