I'm considering using Amazon S3 to build a simple web app that stores family photos, as a cheaper alternative to Google Drive. My family tends to take a lot of pictures during our outings, which can add up to nearly 10GB in no time. I don't expect high usage, as access would be limited to just a handful of people, but I want to know if using S3 would be viable financially compared to traditional options. As a backend engineer, I believe I can develop this within a few days. Living in India, I've found that Drive's pricing can be quite high, so I'd appreciate any insights on potential costs and the overall feasibility of this project.
3 Answers
Using S3 could actually turn out to be more expensive than just going with Google One for family sharing. Remember, with S3 you’re not just paying for storage, but also for every GET and PUT request. If your family is photo-happy, those costs could add up pretty quickly! Plus, managing this kind of service for others can become a real headache, so be prepared for an ongoing time commitment that might not be worth it in the long run.
If you're curious about S3 costs, why not check their official pricing page? It'll give you all the details you need. It’s good to have a rough estimate before deciding. But just know that S3 has additional costs depending on the storage type you choose and the operations involved.
S3 is definitely cheaper in terms of basic storage costs—around ₹3000 for 2TB, which sounds good compared to Google Drive's ₹19,500. However, you need to keep in mind that operational costs can add up too. Each operation like uploading and retrieving files adds a small fee, but if your usage is limited to around 15 people, it may still be manageable. Just be cautious about those egress fees if you expect to download the photos often!
Related Questions
Cloudflare Origin SSL Certificate Setup Guide
How To Effectively Monetize A Site With Ads