[vlovich123]

> it’s almost as if S3 doesn’t charge you anything for transient storage? This is very unlike AWS, and I’m not sure how to explain this. I suspected that maybe the S3 free tier was hiding away costs, but - again, shockingly - my S3 storage free tier was totally unaffected by the experiment, none of it was consumed (as opposed to the requests free tier, which was 100% consumed).

It’s also possible their billing system can’t detect transient storage usage. Request billing would work differently from how billed storage is tracked. It depends on how billing is implemented but would be my guess. That may change in the future.

[adrianmonk]

Maybe some sampling mechanism comes along and takes a snapshot once per hour.

Suppose you store the data there for 6 minutes. Then there's an 90% probability that the sampler misses it entirely and you pay $0. But there's a 10% probability that the sampler does catch it. Then you pay for a whole hour even though you used a fraction of that.

Over many events, it averages out close to actual usage[1]. In 9 out of 10 cases, you pay 0X actual usage. In 1 out of 10 cases, you pay 10X actual usage. (But you can't complain because you did agree to 1-hour increments.)

---

[1] Assuming no correlation between your timing and the sampler's timing. If you can evade the sampler by guessing when it runs and carefully timing your access, then you can save a few pennies at the risk of a ban.