Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by joshribakoff on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @02:17PM (#15296705)

Yes Digital Ocean / Linode bandwidth is 40x cheaper than AWS. Amazon also charges extra for a support plan so you can open a ticket, and inform them of their bugs. And we have found bugs in AWS infrastructure that still remains unfixed, because we have a disproportionate amount of IE users. They essentially forced us to stand up a linode proxy infront of s3 & create our own CDN, since theirs did not work for our users. In the process we saved 4,000% on our bandwidth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by stephenr on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @10:13PM (#15300076)

> bandwidth

How does this industry manage to fuck up usage of very specific technical terms so often.

Bandwidth is the speed. The hint is in the name. Wider means more at once.

You're almost certainly talking about the amount of data transfered.

The most depressing part is seeing hosting companies use the same incorrect terminology.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by joshribakoff on Thursday September 21, 2017 @06:03PM (#15307745)

Comparing 1gbps of bandwidth on AWS and 1gbps of bandwidth on linode, linode is 40x cheaper. Its a measure of bandwidth usage over time, or data transfer. Its the same thing in the context I used it in, which is the industry standard term.

If I were comparing cost of bursting, the semantics would be worth arguing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by kingbirdy on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @02:52PM (#15297030)

how could you save more than 100%?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by joshribakoff on Thursday September 21, 2017 @06:06PM (#15307761)

What I should have said is its 40x cheaper.

But I guess if you factor in not losing customers due to obscure IE problems on AWS, we could have saved over 100% ;) by not losing customers.

Some businesses don't need to worry about obscure IE problems, and AWS will make sense, for us it didn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by thehardsphere on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @03:47PM (#15297533)

Maybe bandwidth went up in the same period the price went down? Just a guess.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by tomcam on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @03:43PM (#15297501)

Reluctantly upvoted because while I am trying desperately to cut down on my own snarkiness, I deeply value precision in language

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by EGreg on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @03:57PM (#15297632)

When you say bandwidth, what are you referring to specifically?

The biggest reason Linode didn't make sense for us is that we couldn't scale hard drive space without scaling everything else, too. As the site grew this became pretty crazy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by joshribakoff on Thursday September 21, 2017 @06:05PM (#15307756)

What I mean specifically is cost of data transfer/bandwidth is cheaper on Linode. If you're pushing 10s or 100s of TB a month its a big deal.

You can still run your own CDN on linode & use amazon s3 as an origin server.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by stephenr on Thursday September 21, 2017 @08:40AM (#15302724)

The "locked tiers" model shits me to tears.

I've managed to find a good Xen based vps/dedi host that let you customise memory/disk independently (but regular vps are all "just" 2 vcpus I believe).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Spaces: Scalable Object Storage on DigitalOcean by jlgaddis on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @05:16PM (#15298332)

"data transfer out", presumably, based on the context.

[ Parent | on HN ]