Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • S3 is dead, long live S3
    by bryzaguy
  • We ran EBS for years. Finally the costs became ridiculous and we moved our entire dataset to S3. We’re saving 20k/month. There’s just no beating the price.
    by d1l
  • The unfortunate part of that graph is that I think it's not updated for today's prices given the memory shortage/crunch we're experiencing that's driven up the prices for all kinds of memory.

    But also while it should be faster than it is, how would an S3 designed around SSDs look differently to an API user? I would think the API is basically the same.

    by 0xCMP
  • Right now it is not even clear how to interface with SSDs even on a single host, there has been all sorts of attempts to move away from the traditional plain block device model. NVMe has extensions for KV, ZNS, and FDP, all which offer different characteristics. And then there are of course open channel SSDs and some others too. I kinda expect the future foundational IO interface to be more S3-like than block-device or unixy filesystem-like.
    by zokier
  • Has anyone figured out how glacier works yet? I wish they’d just tell us. I’d happily sign an NDA, I just want to know how it works!

    I’d also like a “shitter” storage service. I.e no redundancy, no multi-AZ. Just really cheap storage for stuff I don’t really care about losing, so that I can store a bunch of stuff in bulk that can easily be recovered.

    by MisterMunchkin
  • I finally stopped using (S)FTP when i realized that all the ftp clients now have native support for S3. It turns out if you have a business partner who wants to use sftp, 99.9% of the time of they upgrade their client, the upgrade has S3 support, and then you can just use modern tooling on your side. And when they finally automate, they can also use modern tooling.
    by hadlock
  • Nice article. I agree that it is a bit of a shame that everything is forced to be so S3-centric (and I say that as someone whose work helped motivate a lot of people to do that), but right now its an unfortunate reality of running software in the cloud because cloud networking and SSDs are so expensive that you really are required to use S3 if you want a system that can handle "big data" scale workloads cost effectively
    by richieartoul
  • One thing I find notable about S3 today is that, while it used to drop in price reasonably often, there hasn't been a price drop in a full decade:

      2006-03-14  $0.150/GB-month
  2010-11-01  $0.140/GB-month
  2012-02-01  $0.125/GB-month
  2012-12-01  $0.095/GB-month
  2014-02-01  $0.085/GB-month
  2014-04-01  $0.030/GB-month
  2016-12-01  $0.023/GB-month
    Today it's still $0.023/GB-month.
    by simonw

Explore Birbla archives

S3 Is the Future, S3 Is the Past · Birbla