AWSome, S3 storage literally costs pennies AWS is letting punters store objects in S3 for $0.01 per GB per month. The catch? The data will be held in one availability zone, meaning there is less resiliency baked into the service in the event of an outage. Users' object storage data is kept in virtual repositories called S3 buckets. These are physically stored in AWS …
AWS already had a “reduced redundancy” product, though last time I looked it was basically the same price as normal storage.
And the “S-IA” thing in your table looks odd as it actually costs more than normal storage.
And doesn’t “IA” stand for “infrequent access”, which is a different dimension?
Some clarification would be good.
edit: it seems this new offering has reduced availability but the same durability as regular storage, while the reduced redundancy product (which has uncompetitive pricing, so seems deprecated) has reduced durability.)
Please correct me, how this is better than, lets say Kimsufi.
0.01 per GB times 2000 fot 2TB, thats 20 per month.
If you rent bunch of boxes from OVH, for 10 per month with 2TB hard drive in it, you would be better off, tranfer already included in price. Obvioulsy put at least two copies of each file on different boxes just in case one is going to fail. And instant access.
The only thing to consider is the audience.
Your point is valid, but your solution has additional sysadmin overhead as your resposible for config, maintenance, monitoring, troubleshooting etc... With OVH just offering hardware support if something goes pop.
With Aws you get a storage solution... So you literally just start using it, and don't have any responsibility for the underlying services that make it work.
So for a organisation with a sysadmin on board, your option is one worth considering.
For anyone else or if they just don't want that overhead, the Aws offering avoids taking on something they don't have the skillset to manage.
Incidentally, on the topic of OVH, they do offer there own object storage and its cheaper than Aws rates and in my experience so far it's reliable and fast too. Worth a look if your on the market for some object storage.
It's the outgoing bandwidth on Aws that is the real killer. Crazy rates!
They don't mention the cost to retrieve the data and xfer it back...
To be fair, you would have to price a competing solution...
You'd have to consider building out a cluster of rack mounted servers with lots of disk. You would run something like CleverSafe (now part of IBM) to get the replication across the cluster. Then you would have to take a look at your sunk cost in hardware, the price of drives and then take that over a 5 year life span. (Warranty for disks and average lifetime expectations.) Cost accounting would let you do an accelerated depreciation model.
Bottom line... if you own your DC already... its cheaper to roll your own.
If you lease rack space? It depends on your lease agreement, but still probably cheaper.
The advantage to AWS is that its 100% an annual expense no need to depreciate the hardware.
If you were doing this for a home office... going with a NAS would be cheaper but you would have to expose it to the internet if you wanted access from outside of your SOHO. Not to mention its still one device, albeit raided drives.
Thank you for the obvious. There is one thing, you have to compare the benefits of selecting this over other cloud services, not compare it to on-prem solutions; as you point out.
This solution is based purely on the storage of data. It doesn't include movement of data, security, encryption, etc... all which of course will cost more, and you can bet they will increase these prices.
Remember, access can include adding more data, not just pulling.
This solution is purely archival in nature. For instance, regulation states you need to keep documents for 5+ years. So you keep it for one year on another cloud or on-prem solution, and the rest of the duration on a solution such as this.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
