News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by saganus on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @06:33PM (#11301190)
Wow, ~700 TB/mo? That does sound like a lot.

What kind of site would serve that volume of traffic and not have 56k for operating expenses? I mean, I can think of a few examples like Wikipedia maybe, since they are non-commercial and such, but for a commercial business? Maybe 4chan moves that much without a lot of revenue I would think, or maybe... imgur? but not really sure, I mean, it would seem like they could get that amount easily via ads alone.

What was the use case here?

Also, I think that 56k for traffic alone kind of depends on context. I mean, how much does Netflix pay for serving their volume of traffic?

What I'm saying is, isn't 700 TB a month something that would probably be very expensive no matter the context? Just storing 700TB would cost a lot, no?

I'm really curious about your use case here.

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by phoboslab on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @06:43PM (#11301257)
Image hosting community site - notably without shady popup/layer/scam ads, which probably was the reason for the relatively small income. For a two person team that only worked part time on it, it still made good money.

The total dataset was just about 3TB, so storing it was not an issue.

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by saganus on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @07:00PM (#11301347)
I see.

It does make sense. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity :)

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by virtuallynathan on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @06:36PM (#11301212)
700TB/mo is about 2Gbps - on the open market that should be under $1000/mo. Netflix's total cost is probably below $0.25/Mbps. $56,000/mo would get you over 100Gbps of committed capacity from any major provider (or a mix).
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by pyre on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @06:42PM (#11301251)
> 700TB/mo is about 2Gbps - on the open market that should be under $1000/mo

Is that a fixed-cost sustained pipe though? I was under the impression that (at least at the backbone level) those contracts got more costly the closer to full that your pipe was.

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by virtuallynathan on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @06:46PM (#11301275)
Yes, $1000/mo would get you a 2Gbps commit on a 10Gbps pipe. If you used over 2Gbps (95%ile) for the month, you would pay probably $0.60/Mbps for that excess ($0.10 over the commit price). Some providers dont charge more than the commit price for overage traffic.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by saganus on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @07:02PM (#11301361)
Interesting data. Thanks!

It's obvious that I had no idea about costs. I honestly thought it would be much more expensive.

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by alainv on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @07:00PM (#11301349)
Why is it "not have 56k for operating expenses"? Something that can be had for $2k is not something a healthy business spends $56k on. You should be able to find a better use for those $650k that year.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by saganus on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @08:30PM (#11301800)
Well, mainly because I had no idea about the actual costs. I kinda spoke too soon.

I just thought that moving that much data would cost some serious money. Apparently that's not really moving "that much data".

Wrong assumptions on my part :/

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by superuser2 on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @07:04PM (#11301368)
The engineer time to reimplement the other AWS services you're using may be substantially more than the $54k difference in bandwidth costs.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by kijin on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @08:54PM (#11301897)
Depends on what they're using AWS for. OP seems to be running a simple and straightforward setup that just happens to use a lot of bandwidth. It doesn't take five full-time engineers to maintain a handful of LEMP servers.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by vidarh on Thursday March 17, 2016 @05:48AM (#11303419)
Nothing prevents you from mixing and matching there are actually AWS services you can't find cheaper equivalents to elsewhere. My experience is that those of my consulting clients that want to migrate off AWS rarely have any problems replacing it. The cost savings usually pay back any development costs and the overall migration effort in 2-3 months at most.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by misiek08 on Saturday March 19, 2016 @08:51AM (#11318312)
If there will be 2 such companies, for that 108k I can wrote services backend that will be comptabile with AWS, so after a year you can transparently switch to that system on your bare metal and sell it to have your services for free.

I still didn't make my own "clone", because I can't afford machines to start selling it.

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by qaq on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @11:19PM (#11302379)
Hmm very unlikely. Thats 5 full time people.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by eru on Thursday March 17, 2016 @12:06AM (#11302507)
More like 2 or 3 if you include overheads. Depends on location, of course.
Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by vacri on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @08:54PM (#11301898)
It's where they make their money. Like when a restaurant pushes the desserts on you - the desserts have the highest markup by far on the menu.

AWS has a lot of 'free' services, which still have to be paid for. Some of those free services are things that benefit both the client and AWS, but would be avoided by many if folks had to pay for them (like IAM credentialling)

Re:Google nabs Apple as a cloud customer by zifnab06 on Thursday March 17, 2016 @01:19AM (#11302723)
1TB/mo is roughly a constant 3mbit/s. So an estimated 2.1gbit/s. I recently had a 1gbit line from he.net quoted at $500 in Seattle.