←back to thread

Turbopuffer: Fast search on object storage

(turbopuffer.com)
379 points Sirupsen | 3 comments | 09 Jul 24 14:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
nh2 ◴[10 Jul 24 03:58 UTC] No.40923564[source]▶
> $3600.00/TB/month

It doesn't have to be that way.

At Hetzner I pay $200/TB/month for RAM. That's 18x cheaper.

Sometimes you can reach the goal faster with less complexity by removing the part with the 20x markup.

replies(3): >>40924513 #>>40925135 #>>40925202 #
1. AYBABTME ◴[10 Jul 24 09:23 UTC] No.40925135[source]▶
200$/TB/month for raw RAM, not RAM that's presented to you behind a usable API that's distributed and operated by someone else, freeing you of time.

It's not particularly useful to compare the cost of raw unorganized information medium on a single node, to highly organized information platform. It's like saying "this CPU chip is expensive, just look at the price of this sand".

replies(2): >>40925368 #>>40927344 #
2. kirmerzlikin ◴[10 Jul 24 10:05 UTC] No.40925368[source]▶
AFAIU, 3600$ is also a price for "raw RAM" that will be used by your common database via sys calls and not via a "usable API operated by someone else"
3. hodgesrm ◴[10 Jul 24 14:32 UTC] No.40927344[source]▶
> It's not particularly useful to compare the cost of raw unorganized information medium on a single node, to highly organized information platform.

Except that it does prompt you to ask what you could do to use that cheap compute and RAM. In the case of Hetzner that might be large caches that allow you to apply those resources on remote data whilst minimizing transfer and API costs.