Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't understand how they can afford the bandwidth...

If this were on AWS it would be around $0.09 per GB for downloads.




Which is why you don’t host it on AWS. Wrong tool for the job.


Their Github page specifically mentions AWS S3 as a requirement. So they are using it.


It mentions "AWS S3 or compatible service". The S3 API is a de facto standard for object storage services, and there are numerous implementations of it.


(Including many which you can easily self-host like Minio, for those who are following along at home and weren't sure whether that was just limited to other cloud services)


Is there a cheaper S3 alternative that you recommend or that Mozilla's likely using instead?


I think Backblaze's cloud storage is the cheapest I've seen. Microsoft and Google would also be a bit cheaper than S3


As you mentioned, huge fan of Backblaze B2. No affiliation, just a satisfied customer. Can also pair it with Cloudflare for even less expensive traffic serving.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-and-cloudflare-part...


But it's not s3 compatible.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: