Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Storage vs DigitalOcean

Re:Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Stor... by toomuchtodo on Tuesday March 20, 2018 @10:23AM (#16628785)

None of the other multi-region competitors provide multi-region durability "out of the box" (although S3 does offer cross region replication as an option), so you might consider distributing your data between two object stores if you need multi-region (AWS us-east-1 and Backblaze, for example). This ensure not only geographic redundancy, but also vendor redundancy (not to mention B2 is cheaper than S3).

Disclaimer: I am in risk management.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Stor... by lobster_johnson on Tuesday March 20, 2018 @01:14PM (#16630516)

Not sure what you mean by "out of the box". Both Google Cloud Storage and Amazon S3 have cross-region replication built in. Something not "in the box" would imply you have to build it yourself, or buy a vendor product, to get it.

Google Cloud Storage's multi-regional support (asynchronously replicated to two or more geographic locations) is even easier than AWS: You simply specify, on bucket creation, whether the bucket should be regional or multi-regional.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Object Storage: AWS vs Google Cloud Storage vs Azure Stor... by toomuchtodo on Tuesday March 20, 2018 @01:58PM (#16630928)

Thanks for correcting me on Google Cloud! I wasn't aware, as I work exclusively in AWS.

I stand by my statement about the benefit of multi vendor object replication.

[ Parent | on HN ]