New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Cloudflare R2 Pricing, unofficially released!
nanankcornering
Member
From Cloudflare's docs:
R2 storage have two classes, Class A and Class B.
- Class A operations which are more expensive and tend to mutate state.
- Class B operations which tend to read existing state.
R2 Pricing, here we go!
Egress bandwidth — FREE!
Storage — 10gb/month free then $0.015/GB-month
Class A Ops — 1M reqs/month free then $4.50/million requests
Class B Ops — 10M reqs/month free then $0.36/million requests
Class A Operations:
ListBuckets, PutBucket, ListObjects, PutObject, CopyObject, CompleteMultipartUpload, CreateMultipartUpload, UploadPart, and UploadPartCopy.
Class B Operations:
HeadBucket, HeadObject, GetObject
Free Operations:
DeleteObject, DeleteBucket, DeleteMultipartUpload
You can see it directly over at their docs, https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/pricing/
What do you think about the price?
Comments
Direct link:
https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/pricing/
Good alternative, would need to test the actual performance though.
What is this? Backblaze competition?
Yeah Cloudflare R2 pricing has been in their docs for a while now
R2 only makes sense if you have a lot of Class A/B operations and have a lot of egress bandwidth traffic.
The R2 storage part of the pricing is just a bit more than Amazon S3's IA class storage of US$0.0125/GB. So if you take advantage of AWS S3 IA class storage a lot but don't have egress bandwidth costs i.e. one way backups, then AWS S3 IA class storage might end up cheaper than Cloudflare R2. But AWS S3 egress bandwidth costs are high at US$0.09/GB for first 10TB. So if you have a lot of egress traffic, you're better off with Cloudflare R2.
A few days ago I did some quick maths for my AWS S3 and Backblaze S3 stored <5GB data sets compared to Cloudflare R2 and it works out over 6 months I'd save US$96 moving Backblaze S3 data to R2 as the data set houses my Cloudflare traffic and firewall logs which do involve egress traffic to my own servers for processing and a lot of Backblaze S3 Class B/C transaction costs which would be free under R2's quotas
However, it will cost me 40% more on R2 than AWS S3 for my ~2200GB data set as it's mainly 1 way backup with no egress and majority uses Glacier and IA storage classes for storage which are cheaper than R2. But only takes a 100GB of egress traffic to cancel out that cost benefit on AWS S3 LOL
I would recommend waiting until General Availibity rather than the soon open beta before you start benchmarking performance and making a big deal of the data. Currently (in closed beta) the speed and performance is lower than it is planned to be at GA, as far as I'm aware.
(Though you could totally bench both beta and GA, I just mean dont take the beta results to heart because theres currently some rough edges)
I have access to the closed beta and use it for a few things, and aside from the beta speed pains I find it to be a relatively positive experience.
Not really, it depends what you're doing exactly. R2 is designed as "hot" storage and thus the price per GB stored is a lot higher than something like Backblaze B2, with the benefit of lower latency and increased speed (At GA, anyway)
@eva2000 understands this concept quite well, so I recommend reading their post.
If it's as reliable as traditional object storage from the big 3 cloud for example, then this is actually good product.
Object storage from the big 3 has been priced that way since disk prices were way higher and they have had no incentive to reduce price so far. Glad we're seeing some competition to the roach motel business model.
It seems like Wasabi is a lot more convenient price-wise, right?
It really depends on your use case. If you just needed cold storage I could argue that you can pay around $2/TB. You also need to consider if you need high availability and how everything is billed. I could be wrong, but I believe with wasabi you have to store everything for at least 3 months unless you use a lot of storage.
As for high availability (and redundancy), I believe backblaze and wasabi store every file across 20 disks on different racks in the same datacenter. Depending on the tier, with AWS S3 you could have your data stored across different datacenters (availability zones). If you wanted your data stored across different availability zones, scaleway is probably the cheapest but it's only within the same country. (Correct me if I am wrong)
Then you have cloudflare R2 which according to this:
If you are not using object storage for just backups, and do need high availability, cloudflare R2 could be quite a good deal if it indeed just costs $15/TB.
Wasabi pigeonholed their market with very narrow egress policy (your data can't be frequently requested).
There valid use cases for this but in general a silly policy.
Wasabi is the worst, egress limit related to the amount you store, and paying for deleted data (you have to pay 3 month for any file uploaded even if you are deleting it 5 mn after
Not interesting we need 1GB for 0,0025
Open beta now: https://blog.cloudflare.com/r2-open-beta/
The price is a little expensive
It's supposed to be. Cloudflare R2 is not designed to store your backups at the cheapest cost possible. When out of beta it will be globally distributed and attempt to always serve your data from the closest location it can to your visitor with no egress fees.
R2 is designed for "hot" data rather than cold data, basically. If you compare it to other providers like B2 designed for storing cold data in large volumes with lower speed (And egress fees) then of course the pricing won't stack up.
When you compare it to other products similar to it, it is measurably cheaper: https://pricing.ceru.dev/r2
Is this the cheapest way to serve videos since there is no egress fees?
Outside of hosting it yourself, possibly yes but not all video formats may be streamable and you may have to encode the videos yourself in different resolutions and do some other things to make it work nicely.
They have cloudflare stream, but that's probably much more expensive. It really comes down to how much scale you are doing it at, and if it is worth the hassle to save costs figuring out some of the stuff yourself.