[planteen]

Are you doing this to replace a CDN? There are already 3rd party CDNs like CloudFlare.

If you are doing it as a replacement for traffic within an AWS region and availability zone, it seems like you will be both more expensive and have much higher latency.

Or is the application something else entirely?

[chickenpotpie]

It's something else entirely. It's a mixed cloud approach combining the storage offerings of Azure, Google Cloud, and S3 providers. The idea is not to trust one cloud provider to provide fair pricing and proper redundancy. Right now I'm mirroring RAID 0,1, and 3. Applying RAID 3 to the cloud is going to give you higher latency and more processor and memory usage because the file has to be reassembled on the client machine. However, if you apply RAID 1 to the cloud your latency is similar because each cloud provider has the full file. In the case of RAID 1 the library will upload a full copy to each cloud provider and will download files by trying providers until one succeeds. If you only use two providers your pricing is usually the same because geo-redundancy in storage providers is often twice the cost and you're getting geo-redundancy built in by having multiple providers in different regions. RAID 3 is actually cheaper because you have geo-redundancy, but you're only storing 1.5 times as much data.

[thispbowden]

Sounds a little like gluster?