

Compare cost, durability, and regions of cloud object stores - gaul
http://gaul.org/object-store-comparison/

======
idlewords
I think the marketing figures offering more than five or six nines of
durability are just deceptive. There's no way Amazon or anyone else can model
risk well enough to offer eleven nines of durability.

~~~
jeremyw
Assuming the real percentage is much lower, objects have already been lost (of
2T total in April 2013). But given the high write to read ratio, the owners
may never discover this.

------
timrosenblatt
Nice! This is sure to be a time savings for a lot of folks.

Why are some fields missing?

~~~
gaul
Subjectively some fields either did not provide enough information, e.g., most
providers have free ingress traffic, or I could not find enough information
about a field, e.g., number of replicas for several providers. I tried to pick
a subset of data that was both useful and complete for the defaults; other
fields can be selectively enabled.

------
alimoeeny
mmm, so Glacier is still the best bet for archive and S3 for day to day use
storage? specially if you are on AWS already.

~~~
gaul
Glacier definitely has a cost advantage for archiving, although Google DRA
offers a compelling price/ease of use tradeoff. Day-to-day storage is less
clear; both AWS S3 and Azure have competitive offerings and Google is rapidly
improving. Some of the other providers have advantages that a tabular
comparison does not capture, for example Joyent offers a fused compute and
storage solution.

