<story><title>AWS pre-announces public container image registry</title><url>https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/containers/advice-for-customers-dealing-with-docker-hub-rate-limits-and-a-coming-soon-announcement/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ralph87</author><text>500GB&amp;#x2F;mo. presumably per IP address for anonymous pulls. Amazon have absolutely no problem revealing the true cost of egress when it suits them. Also, &amp;quot;500GB&amp;#x2F;mo.&amp;quot;, at launch. Let&amp;#x27;s not forget those generous free limits can be slashed whenever it suits, and why they might be so generous for launch at all.&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t be mistaken, actually using this for public images is falling for another &amp;quot;data gravity&amp;quot; marketing gimmick. So they attract enough public images that some folk find one or more of their services absolutely must pull from AWS, pushing their corporate NAT address over the 41GB&amp;#x2F;day limit. Now your &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; hosting has become a reason for that company to start paying ~$45&amp;#x2F;month to AWS in egress fees just to use your images, and perhaps with a new ticket in the backlog to consider simply moving the cluster to AWS.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But it&amp;#x27;ll always be like that regardless of provider&amp;quot;, not necessarily. The reason that Docker registry consumes a ridiculous amount of bandwidth is largely an architectural issue, both in the software and the design of the client&amp;#x27;s network. Perhaps a better direction is addressing this immense waste of networking rather than turning it into another free marketing opportunity for a near-monopolistic cloud</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tidepod12</author><text>This entire post is just unnecessary fear-mongering.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Also, &amp;quot;500GB&amp;#x2F;mo.&amp;quot;, at launch. Let&amp;#x27;s not forget those generous free limits can be slashed whenever it suits, and why they might be so generous for launch at all.&lt;p&gt;AWS has, to my knowledge, &lt;i&gt;never&lt;/i&gt; increased the cost of &lt;i&gt;any&lt;/i&gt; service after launch. They do, however, have a long history of reducing prices.&lt;p&gt;You also completely neglected to mention this part:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Simply authenticating with an AWS account increases free data bandwidth up to 5 TB each month when pulling images from the internet. And finally, workloads running in AWS will get unlimited data bandwidth from any region when pulling publicly shared images hosted on AWS.&lt;p&gt;So yes, AWS gives some incentive to create an AWS account, and an even further incentive to use AWS services. All I can say to that is... duh?</text></comment>
<story><title>AWS pre-announces public container image registry</title><url>https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/containers/advice-for-customers-dealing-with-docker-hub-rate-limits-and-a-coming-soon-announcement/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ralph87</author><text>500GB&amp;#x2F;mo. presumably per IP address for anonymous pulls. Amazon have absolutely no problem revealing the true cost of egress when it suits them. Also, &amp;quot;500GB&amp;#x2F;mo.&amp;quot;, at launch. Let&amp;#x27;s not forget those generous free limits can be slashed whenever it suits, and why they might be so generous for launch at all.&lt;p&gt;Don&amp;#x27;t be mistaken, actually using this for public images is falling for another &amp;quot;data gravity&amp;quot; marketing gimmick. So they attract enough public images that some folk find one or more of their services absolutely must pull from AWS, pushing their corporate NAT address over the 41GB&amp;#x2F;day limit. Now your &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; hosting has become a reason for that company to start paying ~$45&amp;#x2F;month to AWS in egress fees just to use your images, and perhaps with a new ticket in the backlog to consider simply moving the cluster to AWS.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;But it&amp;#x27;ll always be like that regardless of provider&amp;quot;, not necessarily. The reason that Docker registry consumes a ridiculous amount of bandwidth is largely an architectural issue, both in the software and the design of the client&amp;#x27;s network. Perhaps a better direction is addressing this immense waste of networking rather than turning it into another free marketing opportunity for a near-monopolistic cloud</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>toomuchtodo</author><text>For commercial use, $45&amp;#x2F;month is a low enough cost to be noise for many businesses (even though the bandwidth transfer markup is eye watering). If it’s breaking your budget, you can always pull and then push to another registry (it’s just tarballs after all) or build new images from scratch with your Dockerfiles. Open source projects and similar cost sensitive use cases might consider &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;miguelmota&amp;#x2F;ipdr&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;github.com&amp;#x2F;miguelmota&amp;#x2F;ipdr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Docker Hub is similar to Youtube in the sense that it’s a whole lot of bandwidth and storage used and someone has to pay for it. Could you run your own? Time is expensive. Don’t unless you absolutely have to.</text></comment>