Hacker News Reader

Comment by copergi | Hacker News Reader

What "other options"? You mean sketchy "free 9000 exabytes/month of bandwidth" low end hosting places like hetzner? Those are not alternatives to AWS or azure or google cloud. And those bandwidth costs do not reflect reality, they assume most people use almost none of that bandwidth. The bandwidth still costs the same, just the big users are getting the small users to pay for their bandwidth costs.

View on HN

There are lots of other options. While they may not all be "cloud" providers, there is a wealth of VPS and dedicated server providers in almost all countries you can name.

I have no idea why you are picking on Hetzner in particular. They offer clearly defined bandwidth packages with their servers (20-50 TB) and charge for overages (0.2 cents per GB).

Hetzner is perhaps not what you would call a premium provider, but their prices are about in line with industry wholesale rates. For example a very high quality provider that competes with Hetzner in their home market charge 0.4 cents per GB and they are happy to deliver any traffic you can serve at that price point.

>While they may not all be "cloud" providers

Then they are not "other options", that's the point.

There most certainly are other cloud providers out there, but it would help if you defined what you are looking for instead of conflating issues.

Webhostingtalk is a good resource for the curious.

>There most certainly are other cloud providers out there

With similar pricing to amazon. Are you not reading any of the replies you've gotten?

Yes, I've read them and responded accordingly. Perhaps you could do the same.

There are cloud providers with cheaper prices than Amazon. Please feel free to read up on the alternatives.

The whole point of this exchange has been to point out that wholesale prices are far less than what Amazon charges. Some cloud providers are more prone to follow the wholesale cost level and others are not.

If you want to discuss alternatives to Amazon then first you have to define what cloud features you want/need.

There's a fair number of hosts where you simply get a 10, 100 or 1000mbps port and then use it for unlimited traffic. As long as the provider doesn't pay per MB, there's no issue in filling it up. The main difference with places like S3 is that S3 has great peering arrangements all over the world, whereas such a host probably has worse peering to some places.

But I did ~50 TB of traffic per month at various hosts for <$20 without any issue. Just choose them well, and know exactly what kind of connection they offer.

That doesn't change the fact that you pay much less for much more.

On a completely different service. Which is the point. I get more food for $10 at burger king than I do at a hotel, but that doesn't make burger king a replacement for hotels.

Is Amazon's bandwidth more delicious than Hetzner's bandwidth for the same price? Are the servers more nutritious?

It isn't the bandwidth that is the difference, that's the point. How are the beds in Burger King?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com