Ask HN: What is the most cost effective way to store and access images? I use S3, just wondering if there is a platform that is hyper-optimized for storing and serving images? |
Ask HN: What is the most cost effective way to store and access images? I use S3, just wondering if there is a platform that is hyper-optimized for storing and serving images? |
How often?
What size?
From where?
Do the missiles launch on failure to serve an image?
How much are you willing to spend?
When do you need it?
For how long?
Obviously, I am assuming it's an engineering problem.
lets say more than a million
daily, but putting a number would be hard. But lets assume total image views
would be around 100k
typically an image of 1-2.5 Mb compressed with a ratio of 60%
it's pretty important to serve the image. so, reliability would be important.
it should be cost effective.
The images will be stored for a long while.
Glacier certainly will be slower, though.
You also may have requirements w.r.t. access time, may want a search facility, may want the ability to serve multiple image sizes, may have legal requirements such as the GDPR, copyrights that differ across the world, etc.
I would probably suggest S3 infrequent access tier. It’s a little more expensive than glacier but quicker restore times. I figure if I need access to these photos I can wait an hour or whatever.
If you can’t decide, AWS has Intelligent tier now which will decide which storage type is appropriate based on your usage.
I store about 200gb of photos up in S3 and it’s roughly $.49/month
From AWS (this is assuming no transfer): 200 S3 IA Storage x 0.0125 USD = 2.50 USD (S3 IA storage cost) S3 Standard - Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) cost (monthly): 2.50 USD