I'm running out of storage in my server..

S3

Buying a larger linode is cheaper than buying extra storage.

Example (assumes prepayment):

Linode 512

16GB storage

$16.96/mth

Linode 512 + 8GB storage

24GB storage

$32.96/mth

(32.96-16.96) / 8 = $2.00/GB for extra storage

Linode 768

24GB storage

$25.46/mth

(25.46 - 16.96) / 8 = $1.06/GB for extra storage

what do you think is cheaper? S3 or upgrading my Linode? And what's the difference between S3's storage and Linode's storage? And are there any significant performance difference between the two?

@rymngh:

what do you think is cheaper? S3 or upgrading my Linode? And what's the difference between S3's storage and Linode's storage? And are there any significant performance difference between the two?

S3 storage is networked storage and I would absolutely not rely on it for anything other than archived content. I have tried numerous times to use S3 as a live filesystem and it's always been rife with performance problems and maintenance headaches. Only use S3 as a repository for storing very, very infrequently needed files, preferably just as a backup/archive mechanism.

Your only option for getting extra storage on a Linode without the hassles of S3 or other networked storage is to buy a bigger Linode. It sucks but it's true.

S3 is ideal for storing backups and static content for websites (i.e. images etc which you can link to directly). If you want a real file system upgrade your linode.

It all depends how you use S3. For infrequently accessed data, it's cheap. For frequently accessed data, it's expensive.

I've already established the cost of extra storage at Linode ($1.06/GB). Let's look at S3 for twoscenarios: 0 accesses of a 1GB chunk of data representing a data archive, and 1000 accesses of a 1GB chunk of data representing storing active content on S3 in a busy environment. We'll say that these are the best and worst case scenarios.

S3 best case: $0.14/GB per month

S3 worst case: ~$250/GB per month

Breakdown of pricing:

Best case:

Storage, 1GB: $0.14

Worst case:

Storage, 1GB: $0.14 * 1 = $0.14

Bandwidth (Amazon): $0.15 * 999 = $149.85

Bandwidth (Amazon): $0.10 * 1000 = $100.00

1000 requests: ~$0.50

Total: ~$250.50

So it really comes down to how you use S3. It's really not cheaper for active storage, not to mention the fact that it's enormously slower than local content.

I use S3 for images, JS, and CSS and have not had any problems with reliability. I am also using Amazon's CloudFront as a CDN (content delivery network), so that my visitors get the assets from a server that is close to them. I would have to upgrade my Linodes quite a bit for my storage requirements of user uploaded images.

Here is a breakdown of my actual pricing:

http://i.imgur.com/NwKEN.png

Doing the same on your linode would cost you something like $90. So in your case, S3 is about half the price, but that's simply the storage costs since Linode has cheaper bandwidth pricing than Amazon.

If your usage pattern was that you had more data transfer, eventually Linode would become cheaper.

In my particular case, I have double the Linodes for a HA setup, so it would be double the price at Linode. Amazon's S3 + CloudFront covers the redundancy for me.

I am sure if I had much more data transfer, I would want to upgrade my Linodes anyway, to better handle the traffic.