Profitable hosting on AWS

Started by Optimitron, Jan 23, 2023, 10:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

OptimitronTopic starter

problem: It is necessary for the photographer's website to organize a place for a large number and volume of files, so that later clients can view their photos on it and download them.

Details

Downloading channels does not need super-fast and for not a very large number of downloads / connections.
Each client gets access only to their photo shoot. The bottom line is that the volumes are significant (approximately 2-10GB per client). In general, I think about 300-500GB is needed.
Google drive fits poorly. Sometimes it is slow, sometimes it is difficult to download it, then it is difficult for people to download from it.


Decision: I decided to make a website myself and I already have a little personal experience for this. And then you can also make a gallery.

Question: It remains up to the hosting. The clientele is Ukrainian, so Russian hosting is not suitable. And the goal is to access files at a speed of at least 50-100 MB/sec without suspensions. I went to AWS and in their S3 section price lists – I was stupidly confused. I don't understand how much it can cost.

Tell me how you can estimate the final price of hosting on AWS or give some other advice.
  •  

halley_pham

You can take some kind of storage like https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box
10 terabytes - 40 euros per month, https is available, although there are no more than 10 connections at the same time. Or mount it via samba.
  •  

RoyJones

If you still look towards AWS, then S3 is basically suitable for storing photos, with reservations.
- Store in s3 - cheap.
- It's expensive to pick up often. Fuck them with photos if you don't want to compete with services like flickr - you won't have a lot of traffic, but there are still bots.. If the site is in the public, your S3 (or rather your wallet) will be pulled to death. Therefore - as already advised in the comments to the question - only thumbnails should be shown in the public and the following point is desirable:
- To again reduce the cost of S3 requests, it is very desirable to build a caching layer (nginx of some kind on EC2 - with EC2 the price is more predictable, although there are nuances there)
- Well, if I were you, I would put the full-size photos in some section that requires a login, even if it were through Google. Although there would already be another idea : what prevents you from storing the same photos on some google drive, providing access by email (the address may not be on Google, for example) and using any hosting (yes, even the same AWS) to work with the existing (google drive) storage and display thumbnails generated from there, for quick orientation.
The price for drive will be more predictable.

But in general, this is just an opinion, I give a plus to all previous commentators.
Pricing in cloud services (where the principle of payment by use) can surprise you very unpleasantly: you need to know the subtleties of each before implementing a solution there and hope that the price will be the same.
  •