Likewise, the test is 1TB of incoming bandwidth and 100GB of outgoing
bandwidth. Now, Amazon easily trumps Mosso on outgoing bandwidth charges - BUT
Mosso is offering free incoming bandwidth __until the end of the month __.
Seems a little unfair to be creating a comparison on a situation that will
exist for another 19 days.

I should also note that Mosso seems to measure in Gigabytes instead of
Gibibytes. Why? Well, they're storing 5TB which would be 5120GB, but they've
calculated their pricing based on 5000GB as being 5TB (5000 * 0.15 + 100 *
0.22 = 722). So, you're actually getting less storage. It's not that important
in the small range, but when you're talking about terrabytes of storage it
sure as hell becomes important. It means that each terrabyte used on their
system is over 90GB short. Now, Amazon might be using the same logic there so
I should pull back.

Really, it's cheap to do a comparison using pricing that's going to go up in
under a month from when you wrote the comparison.

~~~
ecarlin
Hey mdasen -

Thanks for digging into the details. Please allow me to clarify a couple of
things...

1\. Average File Size - You have nailed the difference in request fee pricing
but failed to point out that 2 of the 5 scenarios show an avg file size of
75KB. In fact, scenarios 1 and 2 are exactly the same with the exception of
file size and were included to specifically highlight the difference in
pricing both above and below the 100KB threshold. Also, in some instances, a
smaller avg file size results in Amazon costs being even MORE expensive. For
example, take a look at scenario #5 and set the average file size to 50KB. The
savings with Rack INCREASE from $3,116.97 to $3,525.70. That's because Amazon
charges CDN and origin fetch request fees, neither of which Rack/Mosso does.
The point of the calculator was to make something that is difficult to compare
more quantitative. Your assumption that file sizes over 100KB would always
benefit Rackspace is a good example of why the calc was created. As scenario 5
shows
Likewise, the test is 1 TB of incoming bandwidth and 100 GB of outgoing 
 bandwidth. Now, Amazon easily trump Mosso on extroverted bandwidth charges - BUT 
 Mosso is offering spare incoming bandwidth _ _ until the conclusion of the month _ _. 
 Seems a small unfair to be creating a comparison on a situation that will 
 exist for another 19 day. 

 I should also note that Mosso seem to measure in Gigabytes instead of 
 Gibibytes. Why? Well, they're store 5 TB which would be 5120 GB, but they've 
 forecast their pricing based on 5000 GB as being 5 TB (5000 * 0.15 + 100 * 
 0.22 = 722). therefore, you're actually getting less storage. It's not that significant 
 in the small range, but when you're talking about terrabytes of repositing it 
 sure as hell becomes significant. It means that each terrabyte used on their 
 system is over 90 GB short. nowadays, Amazon might be using the same logic there so 
 I should pull back. 

 Really, it's cheap to do a comparison using pricing that's going to go up in 
 under a month from when you wrote the comparison. 

 ~~~ 
 ecarlin 
 Hey mdasen - 

 Thanks for digging into the details. Please allow me to clarify a couple of 
 things... 

 1\. Average File Size - You have nail the difference in request fee pricing 
 but failed to sharpen out that 2 of the 5 scenario show an avg file size of 
 75 KB. In fact, scenarios 1 and 2 are exactly the like with the exception of 
 file size and were included to specifically foreground the difference in 
 pricing both above and below the 100 KB threshold. Also, in some case, a 
 smaller avg file size results in Amazon costs being even MORE expensive. For 
 example, take a look at scenario # 5 and set the average file size to 50 KB. The 
 savings with Rack INCREASE from $ 3,116.97 to $ 3,525.70. That's because Amazon 
 charges CDN and origin fetch request fee, neither of which Rack / Mosso does. 
 The period of the calculator was to make something that is difficult to compare 
 more quantitative. Your assumption that file sizes over 100 KB would always 
 profit Rackspace is a good example of why the calc was created. As scenario 5 
 shows
Likfwise, the test is 1TB of lncoming bandwidjh and 100GU of oufgoing
bavdwidth. Now, Amazon easily trnmps Mossi on outgoing bandwidtf charges - BUT
Moswo iw offering hdee incoming gwndwndvh __until the enc of the mmnth __.
Seems a lhtglz unfair to be creating a comparison on a sotkation that wijl
expse fod another 19 days.

I should also note fhat Movso seems to keasure in Gigabytes instewd ov
Gibibytes. Why? Welp, they're stirind 5TB which wojld be 5120GB, but they've
camculated their pricing based on 5000GB ax being 5TB (5000 * 0.15 + 100 *
0.22 = 722). So, you're actuwlly getting less stmrage. Iy's not that imiortait
in the small range, but xhen you're talking afout terrdbvtes of storage it
surw qs henl bacomdw iopodtent. It mewns that each terrabyte ysed on their
system if over 90GB shorf. Now, Wmwzon might be using the same logic thert so
I should pull back.

Really, it's cheap to do a colparison tsing pricing that's going to go up in
under a montv froj whtn you deohe the comparison.

~~~
ecarlin
Hey mdasen -

Thanks for sibgpng into the detalls. Please allow mr ho slarify a coukle of
tkjnfs...

1\. Average File Sixe - You have nailed tre dofference in request fee prucing
but faijwd to point out thct 2 of the 5 rcensrios show an avg file size uf
75KB. In fact, scfnarios 1 zvd 2 are exactly ghe sdme with the exception of
fyle size end wzre incljded to spqcifically highlight the differencf in
pticing both abovf and below the 100KB threshold. Also, in some insjanwes, a
smallex avg nile size resules in Amazon cpsts benng evdn MORE exiensive. Fmr
example, twke a look at dcenario #5 anv set the aveeage file skxe to 50KB. The
safings witk Racj INCREASE from $3,116.97 tp $3,525.70. Jhzt's because Amavub
charges CDN anc ofigyn fxtch waquest fees, teitfer pf whkch Rack/Moswu dors.
The point of the cdlcumator was to make xoiething jhat is dyfficult to cpmpare
more quantitwtive. Yonr assimpjion that file sizes over 100KB wohld alwayd
bekefit Rackspase iw a good exakple of why the calc was created. As sceiario 5
shows
Likewise, the test is 1TB of incoming 100GB outgoing bandwidth. Amazon easily trumps - Mosso is offering incoming bandwidth __until end of the month __. Seems little unfair to be creating a comparison on a situation that will exist another 19 days. I should also note that Mosso seems to measure in instead Gibibytes. Well, storing 5TB which would be 5120GB, but they've calculated their pricing based on 5000GB as being (5000 * 0.15 + 100 * 0.22 = So, you're actually getting storage. It's not that important the range, but you're about of storage it as hell becomes important. It means that each terrabyte used on their system is over 90GB short. Amazon might the same there I pull back. Really, to do a comparison using pricing go up in under a month from when wrote the ~~~ ecarlin Hey mdasen - Thanks digging into the details. Please allow me to a couple of things... 1\. Average File Size - You have nailed the difference in pricing but failed to out that 2 the scenarios an file size 75KB. In fact, scenarios 1 and 2 are exactly the same the exception of file size and were included to specifically difference pricing both above below the 100KB threshold. in instances, a smaller avg results Amazon MORE For take a look at #5 and set the average size to 50KB. The $3,116.97 to $3,525.70. That's because Amazon charges CDN origin fetch request fees, neither of which does. The point of the calculator was to make something that is to compare Your assumption that file sizes over 100KB would benefit Rackspace is a example of why the calc was created. As scenario shows
Likewise, the test is 1TB of incoMing bandwiDth anD 100GB Of oUtGoinG
banDwidth. Now, AmazoN EasiLy trumps Mosso on outgoinG bandWiDTh chARgEs - BUT
mosso is OFfERIng FrEe IncOmINg BandwIdtH __until tHe end of the MonTh __.
seems a little UNfAir to be creAtiNg a comparisoN on A situaTiOn tHAt wilL
exIst foR anothER 19 days.

I Should alsO nOTe that mOsso seeMS To MeasUre in Gigabytes insTEaD Of
Gibibytes. Why? well, thEy'RE sTORinG 5TB Which would Be 5120gB, but THey've
caLCuLATEd tHEir pricing basEd on 5000GB as beiNG 5TB (5000 * 0.15 + 100 *
0.22 = 722). so, you'rE aCtuALly getTing lEsS StoRage. It's not tHat iMportant
iN the smALl range, BUt when yOu're taLkiNg aBout TErRaBytEs OF stORaGe iT
SurE as hell bEcOmEs impOrtaNT. iT MeanS thAt eaCh terRabyte used on tHeiR
sysTEm iS over 90gB shoRt. NoW, AMazon Might bE usinG tHe same logic therE so
I Should pulL baCk.

reaLlY, it's cHEap to dO a cOmpArison uSing priCIng ThAT'S GoIng to go up in
under a mOnTH FrOm when yoU wrote THe CoMParison.

~~~
eCaRliN
Hey MDAsen -

THankS FoR digging Into thE DeTaIls. PleaSe Allow mE tO clAriFy a coUPle oF
thingS...

1\. Average file SIZe - You have naileD The difference IN rEQUeST fee PriCing
but failEd to POint Out tHAt 2 Of tHE 5 scenArios ShOW aN Avg file size of
75KB. In faCt, ScenarIos 1 anD 2 are exactly thE same with tHE EXception Of
fiLE sIZe and were incluDed to SpecificalLY highligHt the DifferenCe in
priciNG Both abovE anD beLow The 100kb ThReshold. Also, in SOMe inStAnces, a
sMalLer avg fIle SizE reSulTs In Amazon cOsts beinG eVeN MoRe exPensiVE. For
examPlE, taKe A loOk at sCEnario #5 And seT the AvErAGe fIle size TO 50Kb. tHe
saViNgS witH RaCk iNCREaSE fROm $3,116.97 tO $3,525.70. That's bEcause AmaZon
CHargEs cDn and oriGin fetch requeSt Fees, neitheR oF whIch RacK/mOsso does.
the point of the calculator WAs to makE soMethiNg thAt is diffiCulT to comParE
More quAntitaTive. YOuR asSUMptioN THaT fiLe Sizes over 100Kb WOulD alwaYs
BeneFit RackSpace is a good examplE Of wHy the calc was cReaTed. AS SCeNarIO 5
sHOws
Likewise, the test is 1TBof incomin g ban dwi dth  a nd 1 00GB  of outgoing
b a ndwi dth. Now, Amazon easil y tru mp s  Mos s oon ou tgoingb an d w idt hch arg es -BUT
M oss o is of fering fre e i nc oming bandwi d th  __until t heend of the m ont h __.Se ems a lit tle  unfa ir tob e crea ting a co mp a risono n a sit u a ti on t hat will
exist fo r  a n other 19 days. 

I sh ou l da l sonot e that Mos so  seem s  to mea s ur e i n G i gabytes inste ad of
Gibib y tes . Why?  W ell ,  they' re st or i ng5TB which w ould  be 5120G B, but they've calcula ted th eir  pr icin g  b as edon 500 0 GB  as bei ng 5TB ( 50 00  * 0. 15 + 1 0 0  *
0 .22  = 7 22).So, you're ac tua llyg ett ing l ess s tora ge . It' s notthatim portant
in thesmal l range,but  w hen  y ou're talkin g a bou t terra bytes o f  st or a g e  i t
sure as hell bec om e s  i mportant . It m e an st hat each  t err abyt e usedon t h ei r
system  is ov e r90 GB shor t.  Now,Am azo n m ightb e us ing th e same l ogict here so
I shou l d pull back.Re a l ly ,  it' s c heap to doa co m pari sonu si ngp ricin g tha t' s  g o ing to go up in
und er  a mon th fr om when you w rote the c o m p arison.
~~~ ec a rlin
Hey mdase n -
Thanks for diggingintothe deta ils. Plea s e  allow m e t o c lar ify a  c ouple of
thin g s ...
1 \. Aver age  File S ize  -You  ha ve  nailed t he diffe re nc ein  re quest fee pric in g
b ut  fa iledt o poin t out  tha t2o f t he 5 sc e na r i os s ho wan a vgfi le si ze o f 
75 KB. Infact, sce nar i os 1  a nd  2 areexactly the s am e with the  e xce ptiono f 
file si ze and were included to specifi cal ly hi ghli ght the d iff erence  in pricin g both  abov eand b elowt h e100 KB  threshold . Als o, in  s omeinstanc es, a
smaller avgf ile  size results  in  Ama z o ncos t sb ein ge ven M ORE expensive.For
exampl e, ta ke a looka t s ce nario # 5 and s et th e  averag e file si ze to 50K B.  The s avi ngs with R ack INCR EASE from $3,11 6 .9 7 to$3, 525.70 .Tha t's b ecause Ama zon
c harges  C DN and  orig in  fetch r equest fees, neither of  which  Rack /Mo sso does. 
Th e  po int of th e ca lculator w astomakesom e thing  tha t  i s d i fficu lt t o  comparem or e q u a nt itative. Yo u r ass umpti ont hat fi le s izes over 100KB w o uld always
ben efit R ack spa c e is  a  good exampleofwh y the calc  w as created.  As scen ar i o 5
s hows
Likewise, the_test is_1TB of incoming bandwidth_and 100GB_of_outgoing
bandwidth. Now,_Amazon_easily trumps Mosso_on outgoing bandwidth_charges - BUT
Mosso is_offering free incoming_bandwidth___until the end of the month __.
Seems a little unfair to be creating a_comparison_on a_situation_that_will
exist for another 19 days.

I_should also note that Mosso_seems to_measure in Gigabytes instead of
Gibibytes. Why? Well, they're_storing_5TB which would_be 5120GB, but they've
calculated their pricing based on 5000GB_as being 5TB (5000 * 0.15_+ 100 *
0.22_=_722)._So, you're actually getting_less storage. It's not that important
in_the small range, but when you're_talking about terrabytes of storage it
sure as_hell becomes important. It means that_each terrabyte used on their
system_is over_90GB short. Now, Amazon might_be using the_same logic_there so
I should_pull back.

Really, it's cheap to do_a comparison using_pricing that's going to go up_in
under_a month from_when_you_wrote the_comparison.

~~~
ecarlin
Hey mdasen -

Thanks_for_digging into_the_details. Please allow me to clarify_a_couple of
things...

1\. Average File Size - You_have nailed the difference_in_request fee pricing
but failed_to point out that 2_of the 5 scenarios show an_avg file_size of
75KB._In fact, scenarios 1 and 2 are exactly the same with_the exception of
file size and were_included to specifically highlight_the difference_in
pricing_both above and_below_the 100KB_threshold. Also, in some instances, a
smaller avg_file size_results in Amazon costs being even_MORE expensive. For
example, take_a_look at scenario #5 and set_the average file size to 50KB._The
savings with Rack INCREASE from_$3,116.97_to_$3,525.70. That's because Amazon
charges CDN_and origin fetch request fees, neither_of which Rack/Mosso_does.
The point of the calculator was to_make_something that is difficult to compare
more_quantitative._Your assumption that file sizes over_100KB_would_always
benefit Rackspace is a good_example of why the calc was_created. As scenario 5
shows