[kiwijamo]

High 3 and 4 figures wouldn't occur for personal backups though. I've done a big retrieval once and the cost was literally just single digits dollars for me. So the total lifetime cost (including retrievals) is cheaper on S3 than R2 for my personal backup use case. This is why I struggle to take seriously any analysis that says S3 is expensive -- it is only expensive if you use the most expensive (default) S3 product. S3 has more options to offer than than R2 or other competitors which is why I stay with S3 and pay <$1.00 a month for my entire backup. Most competitors (including R2) would have me pay significantly more than I spend on the appropriate S3 product.

[mimischi]

Curious, did you go through the math of figuring out how much the initial file transfer and ongoing cost will set you back (not a lot from the sounds of it). Should be way to do, but I’ve just not found the time yet to do that for a backup I’m intending to send to S3 as well

[telgareith]

Yes- AWS calculator: 1) S3- cost for how much you're storing in glacier and then the cost for its metadata to he in a S3 hot/warm tier. 2) Glacier retrieval cost- can be minimized by letting AWS pull it on their schedule. 3) BANDWIDTH- this is the vast majority of the cost at $0.09/GB. There may be ways to lower this, but I haven't tried them.

I'm not saying its a bad deal, I very much wish I'd gone with deep archive (especially with the recent addition of "update if different" to the API)

[telgareith]

Worst case, it's $90/TB of bandwidth, the retrieval fee, and GB-seconds for a hot S3 tier while waiting to he downloaded and then deleted, plus pocket change for API calls.

With 10TB drives being available for $80-ish... I expect a lot of semi savy people to upload tens of terabytes then cry when they see the bill.

Numbers rounded a bit for simplicity.