←back to thread

816 points tosh | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.011s | source
Show context
netsec_burn ◴[] No.41276529[source]
I've used wormhole once to move a 70 GB file. Couldn't possibly do that before. And yes, I know I used the bandwidth of the relay server, I donated to Debian immediately afterwards (they run the relay for the version in the apt package).
replies(3): >>41276736 #>>41276769 #>>41277271 #
lotharrr ◴[] No.41276769[source]
(magic-wormhole author here)

Thanks for making a donation!

I run the relay server, but the Debian maintainer agreed to bake an alternate hostname into the packaged versions (a CNAME for the same address that the upstream git code uses), so we could change it easily if the cost ever got to be a burden. It hasn't been a problem so far, it moves 10-15 TB per month, but shares a bandwidth pool with other servers I'm renting anyways, so I've only ever had to pay an overage charge once. And TBH if someone made a donation to me, I'd just send it off to Debian anyways.

Every once in a while, somebody moves half a terabyte through it, and then I think I should either move to a slower-but-flat-rate provider, or implement some better rate-limiting code, or finally implement the protocol extension where clients state up front how much data they're going to transfer, and the server can say no. But so far it's never climbed the priority ranking high enough to take action on.

Thanks for using magic wormhole!

replies(4): >>41276923 #>>41276954 #>>41277403 #>>41281702 #
password4321 ◴[] No.41276954[source]
> move to a slower-but-flat-rate provider

As I'm sure you're aware: https://www.scaleway.com/en/stardust-instances/ "up to 100Mbps" for $4/month

replies(3): >>41277059 #>>41277925 #>>41280603 #
lysace ◴[] No.41277059[source]
32.4 TB for $4, or approximately 700 times cheaper than AWS. Neat.
replies(2): >>41277570 #>>41280408 #
seinecle ◴[] No.41277570[source]
Bare metal love
replies(1): >>41279100 #
gruez ◴[] No.41279100[source]
It's clearly a VPS, not bare metal.
replies(1): >>41279178 #
lysace ◴[] No.41279178[source]
I wonder what it would take for AWS to lower their outbound BW pricing to something that's not insane.

I'm beginning to think that the only feasible solution is changing the law.

replies(3): >>41279398 #>>41279412 #>>41279472 #
freeopinion ◴[] No.41279412{5}[source]
Please don't suggest more laws like this. If you don't like AWS pricing, use something else. That's the only real way to develop alternatives.
replies(1): >>41279686 #
1. lysace ◴[] No.41279686{6}[source]
You disliked my idle thought so much that you needed to reply twice? :)

The various factors causing strong lock-in effects, their dominance, and the insanely high pricing of moving data out of AWS - I wouldn't be surprised if they got their antitrust moment within a few years.

replies(1): >>41280400 #
2. freeopinion ◴[] No.41280400[source]
Sorry. It wasn't personal. I just thought you deserved more than my initial terse response and some explanation of what bothered me: Layers of stupid laws on top of stupid laws that impede rational behavior instead of encouraging it.