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

One of downsides of AWS is the bandwidth cost. It's 5x to 10x more expensive. Running heavy media based websites is just not feasible.

This is one of the things which annoys me about AWS, and certain other providers which do a per GB cost on outgoing bandwidth.

We get around 50TB of data transfer per month from Linode, from having around $500/month worth of servers. The cost of using this much data with EC2 - around $5400 a month. It's not even close to being competitive.

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more often.

you wouldn't want to do this straight out of EC2, but once you add S3=>CloudFront to the mix it's much less bad. Only thing you want to be serving from your EC2 boxes and load balancer is gzipped HTML/CSS/JS (could even do CSS/JS on S3/CF if you wanted).

Doesn't CloudFront have the same outgoing bandwidth charge? $0.12/GB? CloudFront does have caching and lessen load on EC2 boxes.

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