> .5¢ per 1000 items LISTed seems insanely expensive considering how cheaply you can transfer terabytes of data with S3.
Correction: I misread - .5¢ per 1,000,000 items LISTed
.5¢ per 1000 LIST operations
LIST operations max out at 1000 items
Still a little pricey, but way less so than I'd imagined.
Do they make a lot of money off of charging for basic operations? It seems like you could make the whole pricing structure a lot more friendly by only charging for bandwidth use. I guess when you're as dominant as S3, you don't need to care about friendly pricing structures.
Charging for basic operations like that is weird, it's akin to a service charging people per number of clicks on a website.
There's money in confusion... I'm terrified of using the existing cloud services for personal projects. For business projects you can mostly just get an idea of how much your month-to-month bill will increase with certain actions, but it's sure easy to blow a budget by accident.
You should probably set up an LLC to handle billing for your personal projects if you plan on going with a big cloud provider.
It sucks, but the fact is AWS/GCP/Azure aren't really designed for hobbyist, they are designed for massive corporations. Their free tiers exist merely as a service to help train professionals to use their platforms.
Luckily, there are still good, low-cost providers out there.
Listing is an expensive operation. I don't know the exact economics of it, but it's very plausible to me that serving 1000 LIST requests has a comparable resource cost to transferring a couple GB of data cross-region. (It should be noted that this definitely isn't a market dominance thing - every S3 competitor I'm familiar with also charges per-operation, and charges 10 times more for LIST than GET.)
> .5¢ per 1000 items LISTed seems insanely expensive
Note it’s $0.005 per 1k requests, not $0.05 per 1k items -- that’s an extra zero from what you said, and also important to point out that one request can list 1k items. So if you list in 1k batches, it’s $5 per million items listed.
Right! Indeed even I was missing three more zeros. So the GP comment was missing 7 zeros, it’s $5 per billion items listed. Yes $5c per 1k items would be very expensive, good thing it’s not that pricey.
Correction: I misread - .5¢ per 1,000,000 items LISTed
Still a little pricey, but way less so than I'd imagined.Do they make a lot of money off of charging for basic operations? It seems like you could make the whole pricing structure a lot more friendly by only charging for bandwidth use. I guess when you're as dominant as S3, you don't need to care about friendly pricing structures.
Charging for basic operations like that is weird, it's akin to a service charging people per number of clicks on a website.