How to organize profitable hosting on AWS (or elsewhere)?

Question

Network administration

Problem: It is necessary for the photographer's website to organize a place for a large number and volume of files, so that later customers can view their photos on it and download them.

Details

Загрузка каналов не нужна супербыстрая и для не очень большого количества скачиваний/подключений.
Каждый клиент получает доступ только к своей фотосессии. Суть в том, что объёмы получаются значительные (приблизительно 2-10Гб на клиента). Сумарно нужно думаю около 300-500Гб. Гугл-диск подходит плохо. То он медленный, то на него загрузить бывает сложно, то скачать с него людям сложно.

Solution: I decided to make a website myself and I already have a little personal experience for this. And here you can also make a gallery.
Question: It remains the case for hosting. The clientele is Ukrainian, so Russian hosting will not work. And the goal is access to files at a speed of at least 5-10Mb / s without freezes. I went to AWS and in their lists of prices in the S3 section - I was stupidly confused. I don't understand how much it would cost.
Tell me how you can estimate the final price of hosting on AWS or give other advice.

Answer 1

https://toster.ru/answer?answer_id=1403637#answers...
1-4tb is UP TO ~2500 per month if you take a dedicated server in some SoYouStart.
Where did you find space prices? In the Amazon (Google, Yandex.cloud), compared to your Dedik, there will be space.

Answer 2

For photographers there is flickr.com

Answer 3

just as an example
Putting 10 gigs and downloading a couple of times will cost about 24 cents a month. S3 is extremely cheap storage if you don't use a coolfront

Answer 4

You have a lot of local hosts. Why do you need AWS?

Answer 5

You can take some storage like https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box
10 terabytes - 40 euros per month, access but https is really no more than 10 connections at a time. Or mount it via samba.

Answer 6

If you still look towards AWS, then S3 is, in principle, suitable for storing photos, with reservations.
- Store in s3 - cheap.
- Often pick up - expensive . To hell with them with photos, if you don't want to compete with services like flickr - you won't get much traffic, but there are still bots. Therefore - as it was already advised in the comment to the question - only thumbnails should be shown in the public and the following item is desirable
: there are nuances)
- Well, if I were you, I would put full-size photos in some section that requires a login, even if only through google. Although here another idea would already arise: what prevents you from storing those same photos on some kind of google drive, providing access by email (the address may not be on Google, for example) and using any hosting (yes, at least the same AWS) for work with the available (google drive) storage and showing thumbnails generated from there for quick orientation.
The price per drive will be more predictable.
But in general, this is just an opinion, I plus all the previous commentators.
Pricing in cloud services (where the principle of payment for use) can surprise you very unpleasantly: you need to know the intricacies of each before implementing a solution there and hope that the price will be the same.