[cherioo]

> AWS (and others) make egress costs insanely expensive for any startup to consider leaving with their data

I have seen this repeated many times, but don't understand it. Yes egress is expensive, but they are not THAT expensive compared to storage. S3 egress per GB is no more than 3x the price of storage, i.e. moving out just cost 3 month of storage cost (there's also API cost but that's not the one often mentioned).

Is egress pricing being a lock-in factor just a myth? Is there some other AWS cost I'm missing? Obviously there will be big architectural and engineering cost to move, but that's just part of life.

[bushbaba]

Often the other cloud vendors will assist in offering those migration costs as part of your contract negotiations.

But really, egress costs aren’t locking you in. It’s the hard coded AWS apis, terraform scripts and technical debt. Having to change all of that and refactor and reoptimize to a different providers infrastructure is a huge endeavor. That time spent night have a higher ROI being put elsewhere

[manquer]

3months is only if you use standard S3, However intelligent tiering , infrequent access , reduced redundancy or glacier instant can be substantially cheaper, without impacting retrieval time [1]

At scale when costs matter, you would have lifecycle policy tuned to your needs taking advantage of these classes. Any typical production workload is hardly paying only S3 base price for all/most of its storage needs, they will have mix of all these too.

[1] if there is substantial data in glacier regular, the costing completely blows through the roof, retrieval +egress makes it infeasible unless you activily hate AWS enough to spend that kind of money