

Google Storage for Developers - mcantelon
http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-storage-for-developers-preview.html

======
boundlessdreamz
I just compared the pricing of S3 and Google Storage and at this stage, S3
wins hands down

<http://www.manu-j.com/blog/amazon-s3-vs-google-storage/490/>

~~~
drewcrawford
I keep trying to find a cloud service that will let me back up all my
computers (3TB) for a reasonable price ($<500/yr) and let me manage it (no
Backblaze, Mozy, etc.)

It continues to amaze me that nothing comes close to simply colocating a NAS.

This has to be a problem that affects absolutely every computing professional
(and even a lot of nonprofessionals--gamers, ad agencies, etc.). How can the
only viable solution be roll-your-own?

And if you think about it, even colocating 3TB is horribly inefficient.
Splitting a Backblaze Pod 20 ways might cut the cost in half.

~~~
cperciva
_It continues to amaze me that nothing comes close to simply colocating a
NAS._

If you colocate a NAS, there's a significant chance that you'll lose all your
data.

Amazon and Google, quite sensibly, don't want the bad publicity which would
come with losing their users' data, so they replicate across multiple
datacenters -- even Amazon's reduced reliability storage replicates to two
datacenters -- which obviously increases costs.

~~~
drewcrawford
[edit: figures were wildly off]

By definition, it's already the second copy of my data (since it's a backup).

For the price of S3 (~$5500/yr, not even including bandwidth), I could
colocate 7 RAIDed NASes ($700 NAS, 4-year life, $50/month colocation fee).

If me and a couple of friends agree to exchange NASes to save on colocation
fees, I could have 31 NASes for the price of S3.

For maybe 50% the price of S3, I could colocate a Backblaze pod and have 67TB
of data storage, 22x my need.

~~~
alecco
Amazon S3 just announced a "Reduced Redundancy" version of S3 priced about 33%
cheaper.

<http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing>

------
nroach
Looks like their 'waitlist' is a google docs spreadsheet+form. Which,
incidentally isn't loading. I'm not sure how well that bodes from a capacity
planning standpoint.

------
timf
Confusing.. why would I use this instead of S3 which costs less, has proven
itself over the last four years (OK, not 100% but damn close), and has
countless client programs and libraries?

~~~
cperciva
You might want to use this if you were building an application on top of other
Google infrastructure. But aside from that, I can't see anything here aside
from some 20% googlers saying "Amazon S3 is cool, let's build our own
version".

~~~
jshen
overtime it will integrate with other google stuff. We already see it with
their other announcements building on top of this.

------
rwhitman
I think this makes more sense if you look at it in combination of one of the
other things they just released - AppEngine for business. Sure on its own this
is priced higher than S3 but in the context of a company running google apps +
enterprise app engine + google storage it starts to make a lot more sense just
from a convenience standpoint

~~~
sketerpot
That's a dangerous road to go down, though. Nobody should try to be the
inferior option that piggy-backs on other, more competitive products.

------
rbranson
....but does it support a root index.html file? This is like the only thing
that keeps me from hosting static sites entirely on S3.

~~~
nroach
You could do that on AppEngine already. Just put everything in your
static_files directory and set it as the default responder in app.yaml

For more see
[http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/gettingstarted/...](http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/gettingstarted/staticfiles.html)

