worthy axle
Hi devs,
I was wondering how the new egress tax would affect the current recommended approach for db backups. To my understanding, writing a backup to a s3 bucket would be counted as egress. So for a 10gb db you would pay a dollar a day just for backups.
Is that about correct? And if so, will there maybe be other ways to backup a db?
manic geyserBOT
hollow duneBOT
worthy axle
N/A
grave thistle
yep that math checks out, you could also backup to a 20gb volume on the pro plan?
oh that's even more money
my bad, scratch that
okay so even if railway where to offer native database backups, they would still end up charging your for either network egress or storage, so the current 1$ per day to backup a 10gb database doesn't seem all that bad imo
worthy axle
Not sure I agree with that reasoning. Sure, if the egress cost is something they cannot lower that would be the case, but since they initially charged nothing thats unlikely. The argument for the new egress tax (torrenting and stuff) wouldnt need to apply to db backups.
With 30 bucks a month for backups, that I would also need to set up myself via s3, it would be a much worse deal than something managed like neon or planetscale. So I fear it would effectively make Railway db hosting non competitive for going into production.
Conversely, a simple to use native backup solution with competitive costs would make Railway a viable option for more (and more serious aka willing-to-pay) users
hallow mulch
That’s the plan! New DBs will be built on our volumes, and we’ll offer the ability to automate backups internally, which won’t cost on egress
Volumes went GA this week so this should be done in the near future 🙂