It's crazy to me that anyone would still consider S3 after R2 was made available, given the egress fees. I regularly see people switching to R2 and saving thousands or hundreds of thousands by switching.
For the most part I agree, but we have found that R2 does not handle large files (hundreds of GB or larger) very well. It will often silently fail with nothing being returned, so it’s not possible to handle it gracefully.
Depends a bit on your use case. If you've got lots of other infra on AWS and you don't need to store that much data then the downside of using another platform can outweigh the cost savings.
doesn't s3 have 'free' (subsidized!) transfer to other products like ec2 though? it might look better to businesspeople that "well, we're doing this processing on ec2, why not keep our objects in s3 since it's a bit cheaper!"
> It's crazy to me that anyone would still consider S3 after R2 was made available, given the egress fees.
If your compute is on AWS, using R2 (or anything outside of AWS) for object storage means you pay AWS egress for “in-system” operations rather than at the system boundary, which is often much more expensive (plus, you also probably add a bunch of latency compared to staying on AWS infra.) And unless you are exposing your object store directly externally as your interface to the world, you still pay AWS egress at the boundary.
Now, if all you use AWS for is S3, R2 may be, from a cost perspective, a no brainer, but who does that?
In most cases S3 data is not directly exposed to the client. If the middleware is EC2, then you need to pay the same egress fee, but you you will have lower latency with S3, as EC2 shares the same datacenter as S3.
