So you're using S3 to serve your assets, eh? You should rethink that.
It's a bad comparison.
If you're going to serve static assets, you're better off using CloudFront which has better delivery and lets you set proper cache headers so you won't have to use as much bandwidth.
Aside from serving assets efficiently, being able to store them in a permanently cacheable scheme is a huge benefit.
We used Cloudfront Asset Host to build this solution at PatientsLikeMe:
I'm surprised that there aren't any well known resellers of Limelight, Level3, and Akamai. With volume pricing, they are a fraction of the cost of S3 with the same level of redundancy. I've gotten quotes of $.04/GB and I've heard from peers that $.01/GB is possible at sufficient volume. Amazon's services have always seemed overpriced to me.
I wonder if the author was trying to compare S3 costs to running your own Nginx on EC2 (which involves other cost than just bandwidth), or to some private datacenter? (Meaning his reference to "taking a huge load off their application servers")
Why would CloudFront double his bill? It's $0.12/gb just like S3.
We've just successfully moved our assets to Rackspace Cloud which uses Akamai's backbone and we couldn't be happier. The pricing (UK http://lncn.eu/379; US http://lncn.eu/bci) works out much cheaper than S3 and we're experiencing fantastic performance hosting JS and CSS files, especially over mobile networks.
Hi Anthony, Go here: http://friendcameo.com/ Now go here: https://plus.google.com/
... friend cameo facebook video chat girl = google plus video chat girl?