Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sanzig | Hacker News Reader

> It would cost the guy $5000 a month to store his data on S3 and he doesn't want to pay that

The standard S3 tier, sure, but Deep Glacier would be about $250/month. Retrieval can be up to 12 hours but that shouldn't really be a problem for long term archiving. As with anything AWS, egress can kill you, but you can sidestep that with something like Snowball, and really that's only an issue if you need to egress everything to migrate the archive.

View on HN

> you can sidestep that with something like Snowball

Going by AWS's website[0], a 50 TB Snowball is $200, so you'd need to drop $1000 for five Snowballs to hold that data.

[0]: https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/migrate-peta...

It's about $20k to egress 250 TB from AWS, so you still come out way ahead.

Anyone contemplating Snowball or Snowmobile needs to be aware that they always charge the per-GB price for data egress, on top of the hardware rental and shipping.

Ah damn, you're right. Looks like it's cheaper than the internet egress fee (looks like $0.02/GB versus $0.09/GB if I'm interpreting the pricing table correctly?). Azure's glacier equivalent might be worth a look in that case, since their egress is usually a lot cheaper.

The webpage says: Data transfers into Amazon S3 are free.

Egress means that cost of getting your data back from S3 someday.

Deep glacier is unviable for anything except partial retrieval.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com