Depends very much on your requirements. If this is data that is rarely changing, and that you have complete copies of, that is <i>exactly what S3 is not good for</i>. In that case: Any dedicated host that&#x27;s cheap and with reasonable latency (or put a CDN in front). Two copies for failover&#x2F;ha if you need it.<p>If you pay more than 20% of the advertised rates of AWS bandwidth, you&#x27;re being robbed. 10% or less is doable.<p>If you need durability guarantees, consider if the cost problem is storage or bandwidth. If the problem is bandwidth costs (in other words: your data set is small and accessed often), store at S3 or Backblazer or similar, and place a server or two at a cheap bandwidth host with Nginx and aggressive caching policies.<p>I&#x27;ve done this for a couple of customers who did not trust other data storage options with their data, and you can rent a server + multiple TB of transfer for a fraction of a the cost of 1TB transfer from S3....