[trezor]

This goes for any hosting service and not just AWS as long as we are not talking about VPSes though.

I just did the math on what using S3 instead of my current business class shared hosting plan would cost me for one of my audio streaming sites.

I have around 10-15GBs of data which gets rotated regularly, so nothing is kept around for longer than around two months. With the amount of traffic I get, around 70GBs per month, and the number hits I get, I still pay less for my business class shared hosting plan than I would pay for S3.

And I also have full shell access and scriptability.

To top it off my plan actually covers 1TB traffic a month, so my site could scale up to 12 times traffic-wise before I would need to upgrade my account. At that cross-over point Amazon S3 would still be 54% more expensive than my current solution.

This might not apply to everyone, but in my case getting S3 would be plain dumb.

[donna]

just be aware because you're on a shared host, they may kick you off to a more expensive machine if you start using all that bandwidth.

[steveis]

What hosting service are you using, pray tell?