| ▲ | merpkz 13 hours ago |
| > AWS charges $0.09 per GB for data transfer out to the internet from most regions, which adds up fast when you're moving terabytes of data. How does this actually work? So you upload your data to AWS S3 and then if you wish to get it back, you pay per GB of what you stored there? |
|
| ▲ | 0manrho 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That is the business model and one of the figurative moats: easy to onboard, hard/expensive (relative to on-boarding ) to divest. Though important to note in this specific case was a misconfiguration that is easy to make/not understand in the data was not intended to leave AWS services (and thus should be free) but due to using the NAT gateway, data did leave the AWS nest and was charged at a higher data rate per GB than if just pulling everything straight out of S3/EC2 by about an order of magnitude (generally speaking YMMV depending on region, requests, total size, if it's an expedited archival retrieval etc etc) So this is an atypical case, doesn't usually cost $1000 to pull 20TB out of AWS. Still this is an easy mistake to make. |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nine cents per gigabyte feels like cellphone-plan level ripoff rather than a normal amount for an internet service. And people wonder why Cloudflare is so popular, when a random DDoS can decide to start inflicting costs like that on you. |
| |
| ▲ | SOLAR_FIELDS 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t mind the extortionate pricing if it’s upfront and straightforward. fck-nat does exist. What I do mind is the opt out behavior that causes people to receive these insane bills when their first, most obvious expectation is that traffic within a data center stays within that data center and doesn’t flow out to the edge of it and back in. That is my beef with the current setup. But “security” people might say. Well, you can be secure and keep the behavior opt out, but you should be able to have an interface that is upfront and informs people of the implications |
|
|
| ▲ | hexbin010 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes uploading into AWS is free/cheap. You pay per GB of data downloaded, which is not cheap. You can see why, from a sales perspective: AWS' customers generally charge their customers for data they download - so they are extracting a % off that. And moreover, it makes migrating away from AWS quite expensive in a lot of circumstances. |
| |
| ▲ | belter 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > And moreover, it makes migrating away from AWS quite expensive in a lot of circumstances. Please get some training...and stop spreading disinformation. And to think on this thread only my posts are getting downvoted.... "Free data transfer out to internet when moving out of AWS" - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/free-data-transfer-out-to-i... | | |
| ▲ | hexbin010 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't appreciate your disinformation accusation nor your tone. People are trying to tell you something with the downvotes. They're right. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pavlov 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes…? Egress bandwidth costs money. Consumer cloud services bake it into a monthly price, and if you’re downloading too much, they throttle you. You can’t download unlimited terabytes from Google Drive. You’ll get a message that reads something like: “Quota exceeded, try again later.” — which also sucks if you happen to need your data from Drive. AWS is not a consumer service so they make you think about the cost directly. |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Premium bandwidth" which AWS/Amazon markets to less understanding developers is almost a scam. By now, software developers think data centers, ISPs and others part of the peering on the internet pay per GB transferred, because all the clouds charge them like that. | | |
| ▲ | plantain 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Try a single threaded download from Hetzner Finland versus eu-north-1 to a remote (i.e. Australia) destination and you'll see premium bandwidth is very real. Google Cloud Storage significantly more so than AWS. Sure you can just ram more connections through the lossy links from budget providers or use obscure protocols, but there's a real difference. Whether it's fairly priced, I suspect not. | | |
| ▲ | abigail95 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I just tested it and TCP gets the maximum expected value given the bandwidth delay product from a server in Falkenstein to my home in Australia, from 124 megabits on macOS to 940 megabits on Linux. Can you share your tuning parameters on each host? If you aren't doing exactly the same thing on AWS as you are on Hetzner you will see different results. Bypassing the TCP issue I can see nothing indicating low network quality, a single UDP iperf3 pass maintains line rate speed without issue. Edit: My ISP peers with Hetzner, as do many others. If you think it's "lossy" I'm sure someone in network ops would want to know about it. If you're getting random packet loss across two networks you can have someone look into it on both ends. | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AWS like most do hot potato routing, not so premium when it exits instantly. This is usually a tcp tuning problem rather than bandwidth being premium. | |
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean transit is usually billed like that, or rather a commit. |
| |
| ▲ | redox99 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AWS charges probably around 100 times what bandwidth actually costs. Maybe more. |
|
|
| ▲ | blitzar 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Made in California. We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave |
| |
|
| ▲ | thefreeman 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You put a CDN in front of it and heavily cache when serving to external customers |
|
| ▲ | speedgoose 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes. It’s not very subtle. |
|
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | ilogik 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| the statement is about aws in general, and yes, you pay for bandwith |
