[HN Gopher] Tell HN: Cloudflare R2 allows 300PB of egress for ch...
___________________________________________________________________
Tell HN: Cloudflare R2 allows 300PB of egress for chump change
In their official example, 300PB for $104. Cloudflare only charge
for the cost of GET operations. Actual "bandwidth" is free. For
comparison, Amazon S3 is $90/TB. So, the equivalent cost would be
300,000TB x $90= $27 million. What is the catch? Am I missing
something? https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/pricing/
Author : truetraveller
Score : 29 points
Date : 2022-10-25 20:55 UTC (2 hours ago)
| CherryJimbo wrote:
| You would almost certainly have to be paying for an ENT agreement
| before you got anywhere close to 300PB of traffic, which would
| incur bandwidth fees.
|
| It'd still be significantly less than $27 million though.
| verisimilitudes wrote:
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| Do you think that's a little too dramatic? Cloudflare took down
| 8chan and Kiwi Farms, and while the centralization of the web
| does scare me, I think you're being silly here.
| cvwright wrote:
| Pretty sure AWS offers that feature too
| hugboxie wrote:
| outworlder wrote:
| See also: https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/
|
| Vendors listed there have pretty competitive pricing for
| bandwidth.
|
| I find many AWS services to be priced decently (if you are using
| them properly, elastically scaling, etc). But that's definitely
| not the case for bandwidth. AZ to AZ charges are one of the worst
| - yes that's cheaper than egress but that's no consolation
| because you are essentially required to use multiple AZs if your
| business actually has any availability requirements.
|
| And don't get me started on NAT Gateway pricing...
| Matheus28 wrote:
| AWS overcharges extremely for bandwidth. But yes, I'd expect that
| much bandwidth to cost at least around $1m on most providers. If
| you end up using THAT much bandwidth with so few GET requests,
| expect a call from CloudFlare.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _What is the catch? Am I missing something?_
|
| Some say, Cloudflare throws the ToS rule-book at you once you
| cross 5TB/mo (or whatever the threshold is; we're at multiple-TBs
| but no one from Cloudflare has thrown as much as an email at us).
| I mean, look no further than the absurd bandwidth rates they
| charge for Specturm (their L4 load balancer) [0].
|
| Pretty recently, Cloudflare blogged about AWS' potential 80x
| markup on egress [1]. That is, the $90/TB AWS charges must cost
| them a measly $1 or so.
|
| Cloudflare in 2014 blogged about how they work relentlessly to
| bring down bandwidth costs by peering aggressively where possible
| [2] (which apparently means $0 for _unlimited_ bandwidth [3]).
| And where they can 't / don't [4], egress is 5x (est) the ingress
| (one pays for the higher among the two), but this creates an
| opportunity for an arbitrage and give away DDoS protection for
| free.
|
| This is pretty similar to Amazon's free-shipping offer for
| _Prime_ customers despite it being one of the biggest costs to
| their retail business. _Prime_ basically has since forced Amazon
| to bring down costs by building vast distribution and logistics
| network that spawns the globe; and this was super expensive in
| the short-run, but in the long run, it has become an unbreachable
| moat around its largest business.
|
| Analysts like Ben Thompson (stratechery.com) and Matthew Eash
| (hhhypergrowth.com) have written in detail about Cloudflare's
| modus operandii over the years, with both agreeing that
| Cloudflare's model is so brilliantly disruptive that even Clayton
| Christensen would be proud of it.
|
| [0] $1/GB! https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/36004172187...
|
| [1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/aws-egregious-egress/
|
| [2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-
| bandwidth-a...
|
| [3] https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/
|
| [4] https://bgpview.io/asn/13335#info
| supermatt wrote:
| I really like the idea of using R2, but it seems like theres no
| real protection against losing EVERYTHING should a write-enabled
| key get leaked? On S3, I would be able to set a versioned bucket
| and prevent deletions, for example.
|
| What are others using R2 for? A "cached" version of your s3
| buckets? Im assuming I could set up something like that with
| workers?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| You don't even need to set it up by hand. Cache Reserve is the
| way to put Cloudflare's CDN with a persistent cache in front of
| your origin (which could be an S3 bucket). It's a 1 button
| config thing.
|
| If you use Worker bindings, then there's no write-enabled keys.
| It's a fair critique obviously and the team is aware of some of
| the product gaps. We only just launched GA :).
| tiernano wrote:
| You are missing the class b charges. Total would be $234.90 which
| is still slightly less than 27 million...
| vlovich123 wrote:
| On the other hand, if you enable Cache in front of your bucket,
| then your class B requests probably go back down to very
| little...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-25 23:01 UTC)