Amazon S3 vs Google Cloud Storage: What are the differences?
What is Amazon S3? Store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. Amazon Simple Storage Service provides a fully redundant data storage infrastructure for storing and retrieving any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web.
What is Google Cloud Storage? Durable and highly available object storage service. Google Cloud Storage allows world-wide storing and retrieval of any amount of data and at any time. It provides a simple programming interface which enables developers to take advantage of Google's own reliable and fast networking infrastructure to perform data operations in a secure and cost effective manner. If expansion needs arise, developers can benefit from the scalability provided by Google's infrastructure.
Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage can be categorized as "Cloud Storage" tools.
Some of the features offered by Amazon S3 are:
- Write, read, and delete objects containing from 1 byte to 5 terabytes of data each. The number of objects you can store is unlimited.
- Each object is stored in a bucket and retrieved via a unique, developer-assigned key.
- A bucket can be stored in one of several Regions. You can choose a Region to optimize for latency, minimize costs, or address regulatory requirements. Amazon S3 is currently available in the US Standard, US West (Oregon), US West (Northern California), EU (Ireland), Asia Pacific (Singapore), Asia Pacific (Tokyo), Asia Pacific (Sydney), South America (Sao Paulo), and GovCloud (US) Regions. The US Standard Region automatically routes requests to facilities in Northern Virginia or the Pacific Northwest using network maps.
On the other hand, Google Cloud Storage provides the following key features:
- High Capacity and Scalability
- Strong Data Consistency
- Google Developers Console Projects
"Reliable" is the top reason why over 589 developers like Amazon S3, while over 22 developers mention "Scalable" as the leading cause for choosing Google Cloud Storage.
According to the StackShare community, Amazon S3 has a broader approval, being mentioned in 3194 company stacks & 1559 developers stacks; compared to Google Cloud Storage, which is listed in 179 company stacks and 74 developer stacks.
Hello! I have a mobile app with nearly 100k MAU, and I want to add a cloud file storage service to my app.
My app will allow users to store their image, video, and audio files and retrieve them to their device when necessary.
I have already decided to use PHP & Laravel as my backend, and I use Contabo VPS. Now, I need an object storage service for my app, and my options are:
Amazon S3 : It sounds to me like the best option but the most expensive. Closest to my users (MENA Region) for other services, I will have to go to Europe. Not sure how important this is?
DigitalOcean Spaces : Seems like my best option for price/service, but I am still not sure
Wasabi: the best price (6 USD/MONTH/TB) and free bandwidth, but I am not sure if it fits my needs as I want to allow my users to preview audio and video files. They don't recommend their service for streaming videos.
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage: Good price but not sure about them.
There is also the self-hosted s3 compatible option, but I am not sure about that.
Any thoughts will be helpful. Also, if you think I should post in a different sub, please tell me.
Minio is a free and open source object storage system. It can be self-hosted and is S3 compatible. During the early stage it would save cost and allow us to move to a different object storage when we scale up. It is also fast and easy to set up. This is very useful during development since it can be run on localhost.
We choose Backblaze B2 because it makes more sense for storing static assets.
We admire Backblaze's customer service & transparency, plus, we trust them to maintain fair business practices - including not raising prices in the future.
Lower storage costs means we can keep more data for longer, and lower bandwidth means cache misses don't cost a ton.
We offer our customer HIPAA compliant storage. After analyzing the market, we decided to go with Google Storage. The Nodejs API is ok, still not ES6 and can be very confusing to use. For each new customer, we created a different bucket so they can have individual data and not have to worry about data loss. After 1000+ customers we started seeing many problems with the creation of new buckets, with saving or retrieving a new file. Many false positive: the Promise returned ok, but in reality, it failed.
That's why we switched to S3 that just works.
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Amazon S3?
What is Google Cloud Storage?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Red Hat, Inc.
Insanely low prices, quite easy to use, and they're fast. Plus they provide great support. And they're integrated with other AWS services, like CloudFront.
Seriously, this is the best service of it's kind out there.
We store the software components that CloudRepo stores for its customers here for the following reasons:
- Data is Encrypted at Rest
- Data is stored across multiple physical locations
- Pricing is competitive
- Reliability is industry leading and our customers need to be able to access their data at all times list text here
In October 2008 we moved to using scribe (now a custom branch), which has served us very well over the past 5+ years that we’ve been using it. We take the logs scribe aggregates and move them into Amazon S3 for storage, which makes using EMR on AWS seamless.
S3 serves as zero-knowledge temporary storage. Files are encrypted in the browser before being uploaded in chunks to S3. When the target recipient downloads them the chunks are reassembled and decrypted in the browser. Files expire after a week and the encrypted chunks are permanently deleted from S3.
Since we generate a static website for our website, AWS S3 provides hosting for us so that we don't have to run our own servers just to serve up static content.
The pricing is great as you only pay for what you use.
Amazon / Google... Google / Amazon ... we decided to take the plunge and go for Google Cloud services as their services seem to be a bit more thought through and structured as they have not developed so organically.
This object storage is always evolving and getting harder to explain. We use it for 1) hosting every static websites, 2) datalake to store every transaction and 3) query with Athena / S3 Select.
We use Google Cloud Storage to store the images and other files that are added (uploaded) or generated in the Flutter application.
All comments, votes, and other actions live here as a highly-scalable, reliable, multi-region storage solution.