If you don't need all the cloud stuff - Hetzner has also storage server i.e. SX134 with 10x16TB for 250€/month. For 50€/month you can order a 10Gbit upgrade and after 20TB free traffic it's 1€/TB egress. It's an ordner of magnitude cheaper. Of course that's because you are responsible for checking the disks, setting everything up and keeping it up to date - but at least for the problems we have where I work there is absolutely no need to use Google or any other cloud and Hetzner is more than good enough.
You need to multiply those numbers by 3 to reflect that the cloud storage service has geographic redundancy, and you need a software stack which provides the same replication and bitrot protection, etc.
People say you should manage your own data. That's great until you have to demonstrate compliance with security regulations. If I'm a big cloud provider, the more regulations and requirements there are the better it is for my business.
If you run petabyte size storage clusters, engineering for compliance should still be small fraction of dollars saved compared to what you’d be paying in cloud (even with old pricing).
My guess is that it's more along the lines of GCP being expected to be profitable. They're a distant #3, possibly #4 in the market so it seems unlikely that they're trying to exploit market position when that'll just give customers another reason to switch to AWS.
in the last round of storage price increases, the biggest change for us was reading multi-region storage, like five or six figures a month increase. 'just rearchitect your application.' it seemed to really be a punishment(sin tax if you will) on a behavior they want people not to do. or align revenue with costs i guess. it really sucks working with a partner that thinks punitive actions are ok.
the whole but youre on a contract so it doesnt apply yet is such bs, it just delays the pain, and we lost track of the many places we saw price increases.
Yes, yes, and storage in cloud was always much more expensive than just "amount of hardware for that amount of redundancy".
Bandwidth price to datacenter is below $1/Mbit at bulk rate. That is either sold in form of whole link (say 10Gbit) or per 95th percentile (essentially "peak transfer rate") not "per MB sent"
Cloud pricing is insane, we are handling around 3 billion dynamic requests a month and serving 100+ TBs of static content a month for a few hundred euros, all rented/dedicated servers, with zero problems. So we would pay like 10-100x times more in the cloud for the same hardware and traffic.
We had bosses come few times to price the cloud migration and every single time it ends up being few times as expensive.
"What about extra work to keep the physical hardware running" - for 7 racks we have maybe a dying drive every month or two. Installing a rack of servers takes about a day with all preparations.
"What about setting up software" - we have automation and paid it off long time ago. Genuine concern for company that starts up but not really for one that needs at least few racks worth of servers.
Egress is why I own a back end server for my projects rather than rent one from AWS/GCP. Unfortunately you still need at least a small instance to host a website.
Preferably far far away from the cloud servers that perform workloads on that storage, so you can enjoy high latency plus ingress and egress costs to access it?
None of these costs are valid in isolation. The DIY savings is probably not a savings for most use cases.
// Disclosure: 10+ years back, our company undersold S3 at 1/10th the cost and much higher performance, but only for multi hundred megabyte up to multi gigabyte files. S3 does the generalized object store shape of work extremely well, likely better than anyone, and is worth it -- even before adding IAM, local querying, and all the other S3 goodies when native AWS. While underselling them for storage we operated, we also used them for our own storage needs.
Curious if issues of deeply centralized (think: monopoly) storage services give airt time for the several decentralized storage options such as Sia [0], File [1], and tried and true torrenting.
Best to Checkout alternatives e.g. https://text-generator.io does text to speech over 8x cheaper which is crazy, cloud storage costs going up a lot but compute costs have always been high esp for managed services/ml so shop around and on a code level, ideally use a wrapper around your Cloud usage to make switching easier
I actually think this is the sign of GCP growing up, and trying to become a profitable business. Long gone are the days where pricing was set by a PM throwing shit against the wall, with little attention paid to cost structure or margins (who remembers free GKE clusters?)
I know people hate oracle, and its features and polish is much lower than AWS. But you should check out oracle Cloud pricing, it's really good. And its free tier is absurdly good.
When Oracle decides it's time to start making money instead of gathering market share with a loss leader, it's gonna hurt a lot more than the adjustment from Google here.
[+] [-] nisa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acdha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmugan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dilyevsky|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
Managing compliance within the app itself is much more work to that.
[+] [-] acchow|3 years ago|reply
Are rising prices like this a result of the market being an oligopoly?
[+] [-] acdha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idunno246|3 years ago|reply
the whole but youre on a contract so it doesnt apply yet is such bs, it just delays the pain, and we lost track of the many places we saw price increases.
[+] [-] chrismeller|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
Bandwidth price to datacenter is below $1/Mbit at bulk rate. That is either sold in form of whole link (say 10Gbit) or per 95th percentile (essentially "peak transfer rate") not "per MB sent"
[+] [-] lossolo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
"What about extra work to keep the physical hardware running" - for 7 racks we have maybe a dying drive every month or two. Installing a rack of servers takes about a day with all preparations.
"What about setting up software" - we have automation and paid it off long time ago. Genuine concern for company that starts up but not really for one that needs at least few racks worth of servers.
[+] [-] cl0ckt0wer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] htrp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belltaco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zxspectrum1982|3 years ago|reply
Asia $0.01/GB => $0.08/GB Oceania $0.01/GB => $0.08/GB Latin America $0.01/GB => $0.14/GB
[+] [-] FredPret|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rektide|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tebbers|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhdgrygev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jqpabc123|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terretta|3 years ago|reply
None of these costs are valid in isolation. The DIY savings is probably not a savings for most use cases.
// Disclosure: 10+ years back, our company undersold S3 at 1/10th the cost and much higher performance, but only for multi hundred megabyte up to multi gigabyte files. S3 does the generalized object store shape of work extremely well, likely better than anyone, and is worth it -- even before adding IAM, local querying, and all the other S3 goodies when native AWS. While underselling them for storage we operated, we also used them for our own storage needs.
[+] [-] andirk|3 years ago|reply
[0] https://sia.tech/sia.pdf
[1] https://github.com/filecoin-project/filecoin-docs/blob/main/...
[+] [-] lee101|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] depole12|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foota|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cypress66|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gazby|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dilyevsky|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwertyuiop_|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphabettsy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metalspot|3 years ago|reply