Amazon S3 Updates Pricing
May 1, 2007
Amazon just sent out an email to AWS developers. S3 has a new pricing model, which actually reduces cost:
Current bandwidth price (through May 31, 2007)
$0.20 / GB - uploaded
$0.20 / GB - downloadedNew bandwidth price (effective June 1, 2007)
$0.10 per GB - all data uploaded$0.18 per GB - first 10 TB / month data downloaded
$0.16 per GB - next 40 TB / month data downloaded
$0.13 per GB - data downloaded / month over 50 TB
Data transferred between Amazon S3 and Amazon EC2 will remain free of chargeNew request-based price (effective June 1, 2007)
$0.01 per 1,000 PUT or LIST requests
$0.01 per 10,000 GET and all other requests*
* No charge for delete requestsStorage will continue to be charged at $0.15 / GB-month used.
The end result is an overall price reduction for the vast majority of our customers. If this new pricing had been applied to customers’ March 2007 usage, 75% of Amazon S3 customers would have seen their bill decrease, while an additional 11% would have seen an increase of less than 10%. Only 14% of customers would have experienced an increase of greater than 10%.
We don’t anticipate making further structural changes to Amazon S3 pricing in the future, but we will continue to look for ways to drive down costs and pass the savings on to you.
Add your comment
No HTML; Only URLs and line breaks are converted.
Comments
These prices seem quite reasonable to me. I'm considering S3 for storing file uploads / attachments rather than keeping them locally, and given the volumes of data I'm considering it means I can keep my media serving (via S3) completely separate from my django serving - means that my own server only has to be tuned for two tasks (Django/DB) rather than three (Media).
Perhaps if I become an overnight success and hae a huge number of attachments S3 won't be so cost-effective - but if that's the case I'd have the cash for separate servers of my own anyway.
I'm assuming you got this email because you're using S3 in some sort of capacity - what experiences have you had so far?
Posted by Ross Poulton
For this site I don't currently use S3. I don't have any bandwidth issues to worry about yet. However, we use S3 for many of our larger clients and have found that is is always the cheapest and most reliable content serving. It's cheaper than keeping content servers yourself, unless you have massive (and I mean massive) throughput.
Posted by SuperJared