Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Recommend static files hosting solution.
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Recommend static files hosting solution.

dnomdnom Member

Let's say I want to serve around 5TB of images that can grow slowly to 20TB in the future. The solution should scale fairly easily if instant scaling is not possible. I'd consume around 1-10TB monthly bandwidth and traffic is from around the globe but mostly EU and NA.

I think amazon s3 is a good option here for the simplicity but it can be a little pricey. I'm not familiar with the competition but would like to hear your if you have experiences with other cloud storage providers that offers similar features.

I'm thinking 2 dedi (for backup that can serve as failover) can offer similar reliability and may cost less but I'm not sure how budget servers perform compared to s3 and how much maintenance it would require. I think this is a pretty basic setup so I'm hoping maybe some of you guys have experience with something like this and are willing to share your experience/thoughts.

Comments

  • FalzoFalzo Member

    I probably would look into a solution of a cloud vps with attached storage, transip.nl comes to mind. maybe use two or three of their middle size VPS with some kind of roundrobbin and attach their big-storage to it, 2TB at 10€ scalable up to 400 TB.

    Thanked by 1dnom
  • dnomdnom Member

    @seanho I don't really need CDN performance. I'm fine with S3 transfer speed. I don't think a CDN replaces that or do you know of a CDN that doubles as persistent data storage and is not more expensive than s3?

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    The suck with S3 is the insane bandwidth costs. 10TB in bandwidth is $1000/mo.

  • JustAMacUserJustAMacUser Member
    edited March 2017

    DreamHost has S3-compatible storage for a bit cheaper. Still gets expensive in the 10 TB range...

  • Get to couple dedis in both EU and NA i suggest OVH as they have both locations setup them config Geo DNS to use to servers specfic to that region

    Thanked by 1doughmanes
  • Did you look into Online's latest C14 offer? https://www.online.net/en/c14

    As long as your traffic is more than 2.5X of storage you are saving. And you have your cost secured as C14 Intensive does not charge operations or traffic.

  • cnbeining said:

    As long as your traffic is more than 2.5X of storage you are saving. And you have your cost secured as C14 Intensive does not charge operations or traffic.

    I don't think you can serve files to the public from there. It's just storage.

  • BunnySpeedBunnySpeed Member, Host Rep
    edited March 2017

    Thanks @willie.

    @dnom said:
    Let's say I want to serve around 5TB of images that can grow slowly to 20TB in the future. The solution should scale fairly easily if instant scaling is not possible. I'd consume around 1-10TB monthly bandwidth and traffic is from around the globe but mostly EU and NA.

    I think amazon s3 is a good option here for the simplicity but it can be a little pricey. I'm not familiar with the competition but would like to hear your if you have experiences with other cloud storage providers that offers similar features.

    I'm thinking 2 dedi (for backup that can serve as failover) can offer similar reliability and may cost less but I'm not sure how budget servers perform compared to s3 and how much maintenance it would require. I think this is a pretty basic setup so I'm hoping maybe some of you guys have experience with something like this and are willing to share your experience/thoughts.

    We have cloud storage at $20/TB per month (beta at the moment), and you can plug a $5/TB CDN zone over it to serve the images via the Los Angeles, Atlanta, France and German PoP.

Sign In or Register to comment.