Comments on: Cost analysis: S3 vs Wikimedia http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/ Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:14:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Domas Mituzas http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1138 Fri, 04 May 2007 16:33:31 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1138 What staff costs at Wikipedia? :-)

]]> By: msouth http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1137 Fri, 04 May 2007 16:07:20 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1137 Did you factor in staff costs?

]]> By: James Day http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1136 Thu, 03 May 2007 18:05:13 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1136 Offloading only the peak 10% or 5% to S3 might be more interesting since that would reduce the peak Gb/s without using much S3 bandwidth.

]]> By: Domas Mituzas http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1135 Tue, 01 May 2007 22:41:41 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1135 I used peak for our current bandwidth costs and average for calculating S3 – I really took that into account, didn’t help.

]]> By: Dave http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1134 Tue, 01 May 2007 14:54:09 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1134 Double check your bandwidth costs calculations. Most providers charge you on your *peak* (or rather, a more complicated calculation that ends up being about 95% of your peak) bandwidth used, NOT average. This is a subtle but important consideration when comparing S3 bandwidth (which charges the same regardless of how volatile your bw usage is) to other providers which tend to charge more for more volatile usage.

]]> By: Domas Mituzas http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1133 Tue, 01 May 2007 14:45:30 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1133 their new pricing doesn’t lower prices that much – though bandwidth becomes cheaper (~20000$ per month), request costs add up (additional 20000-25000$).

on the other hand, for stuff like download services, new bandwidth cost structure seems to be a good deal.

]]> By: tamole http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1132 Tue, 01 May 2007 11:43:33 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1132 Amazon is going to change their prices on June 1st, so it might get a little bit cheaper then…

http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=16427261

]]> By: Domas Mituzas http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1131 Tue, 01 May 2007 02:39:30 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1131 Akamai isn’t cheaper too :-)

]]> By: Robert Accettura http://dom.as/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1130 Tue, 01 May 2007 00:25:14 +0000 http://dammit.lt/2007/05/01/wikipedia-s3-costs/#comment-1130 That’s correct.

I don’t think S3 is really intended to be a CDN or a bandwidth outsourcing method, but a storage method. For Wikimedia’s purpose it would be the wrong solution. I’d look more towards an Akamai-like CDN to outsource to.

Using S3 for redundancy, fallover (in case servers can’t meet demand) would perhaps be a bit more practical.

]]>