I didn't get a write rate per user
I didn't get a write rate per user
BIt might not be that bad
IAlso DDC is peculiar in that if you don't have too many changes to the assets then there won't be as many writes.
ISo might be reasonable depending on workflow?
MProblem with calculating write cost, is it not very consistent at all
MI am gonna have to think on this for a bit
BPlease check my math
$12 for a one-time cost for the initial build
$1.35 / mo for storage assuming you're storing 100 GB for the month.
$10.16 / mo for class B for 5 users assuming each is doing 100k reads per hour, 8 hours a day for 20 work days per month
$0/mo for class A for 5 users assuming each is doing 1k writes per hour, 8 hours a day for 20 work days per month.
$12 for a one-time cost for the initial build
$1.35 / mo for storage assuming you're storing 100 GB for the month.
$10.16 / mo for class B for 5 users assuming each is doing 100k reads per hour, 8 hours a day for 20 work days per month
$0/mo for class A for 5 users assuming each is doing 1k writes per hour, 8 hours a day for 20 work days per month.
MActually, that looks good
MI will still need to think on it for a bit
BIf you do 10k writes/hour then it's $30 for class A
BBut 10k writes per second seems high. That's 2rps of writes per user continuously for the entire hour
MIt probally wont be that high
MAs at most we usally only have 2 users actually doing stuff at a time
BThen I think you'll likely end up with $0 / mo for writes (excluding the initial build)
MIt really depends on whats going on at the time
MAnyways, I gotta call it a night, thanks for all your help!
Bnp
Bgood luck
B@Isaac McFadyen | YYZ01 do you know who's responsible for https://pricing.ceru.dev/r2 ? I'm curious if the pricing configuration accounts for the free limits correctly and the github source doesn't seem to include R2
Estimate your next bill, see the price difference. Unofficial calculator for Cloudflare Workers Unbound, Cloudflare R2, and KV.
IIt's @toridev (Cerulean without the nickname).
FThe following features are currently on the roadmap for R2 but not yet implemented.Pre-signed URLs are now implemented!
- Public Buckets
- Mapping a bucket to your custom domain
In the meantime, you can use a Worker to replicate the vast majority of functionality such as serving & caching public assets.
Take a look at the Demo Worker example here: https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/examples/demo-worker/
Also, there's a great community project called Render that's made for R2:
https://github.com/kotx/render
Workers will not be required for making assets publicly available in the future, they are just an interim stop-gap.
BYes. It's part of the public buckets work but it'll be one of the last things implemented.
BThe current solution indeed is to have a Worker in between that adds the CORS information you need
BIf anyone writes a unit-tested Worker that evaluates S3 CORS rules and applies them to requests (as JS objects - I can do the XML -> JS piece) that'll make that piece go 
faster 
faster 
Hrequest two function of r2
have two object:
object1/test.txt the content is “test1111”
object2/test2.txt set redirect to object1/test.txt in metadata （the object is 0 bytes file only set matedata）
Then request
https://domain/object1/test.txt
response filename test.txt with content test1111
https://domain/object2/test2.txt
response filename test2.txt with content test1111
and if bind domain2 with prefix：object2
will support use
https://domain2/test2.txt
to request /object2/test2.txt
of course it can be implement with workers but it will cost more
- support redirect object
- support bind custom domain with prefix
have two object:
object1/test.txt the content is “test1111”
object2/test2.txt set redirect to object1/test.txt in metadata （the object is 0 bytes file only set matedata）
Then request
https://domain/object1/test.txt
response filename test.txt with content test1111
https://domain/object2/test2.txt
response filename test2.txt with content test1111
and if bind domain2 with prefix：object2
will support use
https://domain2/test2.txt
to request /object2/test2.txt
of course it can be implement with workers but it will cost more
�?r2-roadmap
FThe following features are currently on the roadmap for R2 but not yet implemented.Pre-signed URLs are now implemented!
- Public Buckets
- Mapping a bucket to your custom domain
In the meantime, you can use a Worker to replicate the vast majority of functionality such as serving & caching public assets.
Take a look at the Demo Worker example here: https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/examples/demo-worker/
Also, there's a great community project called Render that's made for R2:
https://github.com/kotx/render
Workers will not be required for making assets publicly available in the future, they are just an interim stop-gap.
BI'm aware of the request for symlink or redirect support (this is the 3rd time you're asking). Seems unlikely we'll implement it in any short term. There are several challenges.
- That operation doesn't exist at all in S3 which means what does the shape of the REST query look like in a way that remains future-proofed against conflicting with future changes AWS makes?
- This operation doesn't exist at all which means how do you make it accessible from tooling?
- What is the expectation around behavior if the original file is deleted?
- It complicates the metadata layer a bit.
CopyObject as a custom copy directive (we have REPLACE so probably SYMLINK might work there). That solves 1 and 2 but makes 3 weird since after issuing a CopyObject to create object2/test2.txt --> object1/test.txt, DeleteObject object1/test.txt, the copy "doesn't exist" and is dangling metadata that you'd be billed for that's difficult to cleanup (you'd have to basically try to access that object or encounter it in a list). What happens if you now put a new object1/test.txt - is the symlink expected to work? The solution here is probably that such a redirect shows up in
ListObjectbut always returns a 404 on a GET (but does it respond to a HEAD request? maybe only if there's an option that says "don't resolve symlinks"?)
PutObjectobject1/test.txtCopyObjectobject2/test2.txt --> object1/test.txtCopyObjectobject1/test.txt --> object2/test2.txt
This isn't even getting into the concept of making cross-bucket symlinks.
BRe #2, that's the cname stuff I mentioned earlier.
HThink’s for your reply
BOh and writes are another challenge. If I have
B --> A and I PutObject to B, does that destroy the symlink and create a new B or does it overwrite AI don't think you need to think so much
For example, if exists (a -> b)
When getting the object, just cast the request target to B internally! Return 404 if B does not exist!
When operating B, you do not need to care about A, and the user maintains it by himself
It doesn't matter if A is charged even after B is removed, because it's cheap!
R2 only needs to provide the function of internal jump (and only supports one jump, only from A→B, not A→B→C), and the jump is maintained by the user
For example, if exists (a -> b)
When getting the object, just cast the request target to B internally! Return 404 if B does not exist!
When operating B, you do not need to care about A, and the user maintains it by himself
It doesn't matter if A is charged even after B is removed, because it's cheap!
R2 only needs to provide the function of internal jump (and only supports one jump, only from A→B, not A→B→C), and the jump is maintained by the user
HFor example, if the accessed object metadata exists [x-redirect-object], then change the access target to the value of [x-redirect-object]
For example I set metadata for the object /user3333/test222.txt
x-redirect-object:/object/test.bin
Then when I request /user3333/test222.txt, the target of the request will be redirected (internally) to /object/test.bin, but the returned file name can be test222.txt
If /object/test.bin does not exist, then return 404 normally
The main reason for this is to save storage space if you need to save the same file for multiple users, but they name them differently.
And, if you can support binding prefixes, you can bind a separate domain name to each user, and they can directly access files with their domain name
For example, now two users have saved the same file (test.png), but they are named differently,
User A is named: /static/image/test.png
User B named: /images/background.png
If bind prefix and redirection are supported
Then you can save the file as: /raw/test.png
Create an object for user A: /user_a/static/image/test.png
Create an object for user B: /user_b/images/background.png
All set [x-redirect-object=/raw/test.png] for them
Then bind the domain name [user1.domain.com] and prefix [/user_a] to user A
Bind the domain name [user2.domain.com] and prefix [/user_b] to user B
at this time
User A can use
user1.domain.com/static/image/test.png
User B can use
user2.domain.com/images/background.png
access object
and the object is only saved once
For example I set metadata for the object /user3333/test222.txt
x-redirect-object:/object/test.bin
Then when I request /user3333/test222.txt, the target of the request will be redirected (internally) to /object/test.bin, but the returned file name can be test222.txt
If /object/test.bin does not exist, then return 404 normally
The main reason for this is to save storage space if you need to save the same file for multiple users, but they name them differently.
And, if you can support binding prefixes, you can bind a separate domain name to each user, and they can directly access files with their domain name
For example, now two users have saved the same file (test.png), but they are named differently,
User A is named: /static/image/test.png
User B named: /images/background.png
If bind prefix and redirection are supported
Then you can save the file as: /raw/test.png
Create an object for user A: /user_a/static/image/test.png
Create an object for user B: /user_b/images/background.png
All set [x-redirect-object=/raw/test.png] for them
Then bind the domain name [user1.domain.com] and prefix [/user_a] to user A
Bind the domain name [user2.domain.com] and prefix [/user_b] to user B
at this time
User A can use
user1.domain.com/static/image/test.png
User B can use
user2.domain.com/images/background.png
access object
and the object is only saved once
BMy job as a TL is to think through the consequences of decisions. I understand your use case is solved by the requirements you laid out but we don't build features just for 1 customer unless it's a very large ENT contract (& even then, maybe). I need to think through the problem comprehensively so that the feature is designed in a way that doesn't lead to a dead end or have sharp corner cases that surprise customers that aren't you in weird ways.
This is a cost reduction mechanism but only for the customers that can make use of it (& even then, storage is fairly cheap - I don't know how big of a cost reduction this is in practice).
AFAIK no other object storage system has something like this. That gives me pause and makes me want to make sure I've thought through every potential corner case & know how it should work.
This is a cost reduction mechanism but only for the customers that can make use of it (& even then, storage is fairly cheap - I don't know how big of a cost reduction this is in practice).
AFAIK no other object storage system has something like this. That gives me pause and makes me want to make sure I've thought through every potential corner case & know how it should work.
BA more general solution might even be to just optimize
CopyObject so that copies don't count towards more storage space & reduce storage costs in a significantly more meaningful way. Then you don't even need symlinks. This is why I'm saying things need to be thought through.HIt would be better if CopyObject was not billed
BAnyway. My point wasn't to say we're going down a path. Just that there's a lot of nuance & options to think through before we pick a path.
Hok thanks for your patience
BAnd it's also possible we will choose to pick no paths & stick with existing primitives (i.e. not high value enough of a feature vs so many other things we need to go build)
KNot currently - if you was using a Worker for public access (or any kind of auth you run in a Worker) then you could DIY it up but that's about it at the moment
ZJust curious: does TL stand for technical lead or something else?
AHow can I limit the size of body in workers ? by default it's 100 mo but I want to limit to 4mo
