In what sense? The durability is 11 9s either way [1]. If you value all the different AWS regions, then it's true that B2 can't match that. I'd still argue the 4.6x cost difference isn't worth that for a lot of uses, though.
The data is only stored in one data center, and the 99.9 and 99.99 percentile latency on requests is not good and can cause issues depending on use case.
And if durability is your main concern you'd be on a cheaper S3 plan anyway.
> I'd still argue the 4.6x cost difference isn't worth that for a lot of uses, though.
Sure. S3 and B2 have different strengths, and B2 is better for many uses. But looking at the full stack and the performance at each layer suggests to me that S3 charges a reasonable/fair price for storage. And that's what the question was about.
And if durability is your main concern you'd be on a cheaper S3 plan anyway.
> I'd still argue the 4.6x cost difference isn't worth that for a lot of uses, though.
Sure. S3 and B2 have different strengths, and B2 is better for many uses. But looking at the full stack and the performance at each layer suggests to me that S3 charges a reasonable/fair price for storage. And that's what the question was about.