Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hahahafail 4474 days ago
very cool repository, found the S3 data here:

https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/...

So basically at their peak, they had ~174TB S3 and ~47TB S3 RRS. That month cost them ~$16.2k, whereas after April 1 they could have put everything in S3 for ~$6.7k. That's a big difference, but they were still getting taken to the cleaners over some other services like RDS.
2 comments
opendais 4474 days ago
Cool. So they had roughly (with rounding):

RRS: 2+3+6+8+9+18+19+22+27+34+42+48+7=~245 TB/months=~

Normal: 7+9+13+19+24+46+56+65+76+95+123+153+174+25=~885 TB/months

Difference:

$0.085-$0.0300=$0.055

$0.068-$0.0240=$0.044

End:

0.055 * 885 * 1024=$49,843 0.044 * 245 * 1024=$11,039 $49,843+$11,039=~$60k saved which is 20% of what they were short, if they had started with April 1st's pricing.

If you can reduce the AWS $400k by 40% due to the reduced pricing for EC2, you'd still fall short.

link
hrrsn 4474 days ago
Why wouldn't they put all of that in a Backblaze Storage Pod? 2 months of AWS costs could've built more than 2 pods and stored everything with plenty of space to spare.
link
tiquorsj 4474 days ago
Price out the backup solution for that back blaze. Then make the backblaze geograohiclly redundant. Then write the system to keep them in sync. Then add versioning. Then pay for someone to manage it. Now you are getting towards the real cost of that backblaze to replace S3.
link
herokusaki 4474 days ago
>Then write the system to keep them in sync. Then add versioning.

Are there any ready-to-deploy solutions for this?

link