← Back to context Comment by TedDoesntTalk 17 hours ago My company just did this. Still using AWS S3 but everything else is on-prem with kubernetes. 4 comments TedDoesntTalk Reply eddythompson80 16 hours ago That sounds insanely expensive. AWS S3 only makes sense if your workload is also in AWS. Using AWS S3 while having your compute elsewhere is a recipe for an insane egress bill. tormeh 5 hours ago Dependa how you use it. If it's only for backups then it's fine. yurishimo 17 hours ago How much of your public facing workloads rely on S3 if I can ask? alubic 17 hours ago There's plenty of OSS drop-in replacements for S3.
eddythompson80 16 hours ago That sounds insanely expensive. AWS S3 only makes sense if your workload is also in AWS. Using AWS S3 while having your compute elsewhere is a recipe for an insane egress bill. tormeh 5 hours ago Dependa how you use it. If it's only for backups then it's fine.
yurishimo 17 hours ago How much of your public facing workloads rely on S3 if I can ask? alubic 17 hours ago There's plenty of OSS drop-in replacements for S3.
That sounds insanely expensive. AWS S3 only makes sense if your workload is also in AWS. Using AWS S3 while having your compute elsewhere is a recipe for an insane egress bill.
Dependa how you use it. If it's only for backups then it's fine.
How much of your public facing workloads rely on S3 if I can ask?
There's plenty of OSS drop-in replacements for S3.