[Possible Documentation Bug?] Estimated cloud costs for FSx might be incorrect

[njmei]

Describe the bug
Hi! I happened to find this very helpful appendix document:
https://cloud-pipeline.com/manual/Appendix_F/Appendix_F._%D0%A1omparison_of_using_different_FS_storages_%28FSx_for_Lustre_vs_EFS_in_AWS%29/

Source markdown:

cloud-pipeline/docs/md/manual/Appendix_F/Appendix_F._Сomparison_of_using_different_FS_storages_(FSx_for_Lustre_vs_EFS_in_AWS).md

Lines 139 to 142 in 18ff88c

	- **FSx for Lustre**
	> 1. $0.14 GB-month / 30 / 24 = $0.000194 GB-hour
	> 2. 1228 GB x $0.000194 GB-hour x 720 hours = **$171,5** (**FSx for Lustre** monthly cost)

But, I think there might be an oversight in how the FSx cost is being calculated. Though, it depends on how the test data was loaded into the FSx filesystem. At least based on current pricing docs in AWS (as of Oct. 10 2024), I see that there is a Data Transfer cost: https://aws.amazon.com/fsx/lustre/pricing/

It looks like the cost of loading data via an S3 data repository association might actually be:

- **FSx for Lustre**

> 1. $0.14 GB-month / 30 / 24 = $0.000194 GB-hour
> 2. 1228 GB x $0.000194 GB-hour x 720 hours = **$171,5** (**FSx for Lustre** monthly cost)

Data transfer costs:
> 1. 15 GB * $0.01/GB = $0.15 (This will likely be a onetime cost since new references will be rare)
> 2. 50 GB * $0.01/GB = $0.50 (Depends on how many FASTQ sets [and their sizes] are imported into FSx volume)

If in the month 100 sets of 50 GB FASTQ files are loaded into the FSx volume and aligned then
costs would be $50 for data transfers and would bring the total month cost to $221,65. Other
complicating factors include whether large `*.bam` files are also saved and exported which may
also incur data transfer "out" costs.

Please note though that I don't have details on how the appendix tests were run, so my proposed correction may not be accurate.