Fraser Speirs (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} fraserspeirs) wrote,@ 2006-09-13 10:09:00 |
|
S3 vs Bingodisk
Joyent just announced their new product - Bingo. It's 100GB of online storage, plus 10GB/month of bandwidth for $199/year (or $16.58/month). Additional bandwidth is $0.20/GB, just like Amazon S3. I thought it would be interesting to see how the price scales with data and usage on both Bingo and S3.
Here's S3:
And here's Bingo:
Both charts show the price for 0-100GB of storage and 0-150GB of bandwidth usage. Bingo is flat in the data direction since it's apparently capped at 100GB and you can't buy more.
What's interesting here is that S3 has the edge if you have modest needs for either data or bandwidth but not both. In the Bingo pricing model, you're always paying for 100GB of storage, even if you don't use it. Once you start being bandwidth-bound, as it were, on 100GB of data, the costs scale pretty similarly on both services.
For me, the no-minimums pricing policy on Amazon is attractive. You only ever pay for what you use and you never feel you're not getting your money's worth. If I had a Bingo account, and didn't fill it, I would feel a bit dissatisfied. I said that my podcast archive was more about completeness than high-demand, so S3 still seems to be the way to go for that, particularly given its unlimited nature.
All that said, Bingo does have some significant value propositions over S3. In particular, the fact that you can connect over a standard protocol (WebDAV) is very attractive, compared to S3's custom HTTP-based protocol.
Joyent just announced their new product - Bingo. It's 100GB of online storage, plus 10GB/month of bandwidth for $199/year (or $16.58/month). Additional bandwidth is $0.20/GB, just like Amazon S3. I thought it would be interesting to see how the price scales with data and usage on both Bingo and S3.
Here's S3:
And here's Bingo:
Both charts show the price for 0-100GB of storage and 0-150GB of bandwidth usage. Bingo is flat in the data direction since it's apparently capped at 100GB and you can't buy more.
What's interesting here is that S3 has the edge if you have modest needs for either data or bandwidth but not both. In the Bingo pricing model, you're always paying for 100GB of storage, even if you don't use it. Once you start being bandwidth-bound, as it were, on 100GB of data, the costs scale pretty similarly on both services.
For me, the no-minimums pricing policy on Amazon is attractive. You only ever pay for what you use and you never feel you're not getting your money's worth. If I had a Bingo account, and didn't fill it, I would feel a bit dissatisfied. I said that my podcast archive was more about completeness than high-demand, so S3 still seems to be the way to go for that, particularly given its unlimited nature.
All that said, Bingo does have some significant value propositions over S3. In particular, the fact that you can connect over a standard protocol (WebDAV) is very attractive, compared to S3's custom HTTP-based protocol.
