21–30 of 393 posts
What does "99.999999999% durability" mean? Does it mean they allow themselves to lose one byte per terabyte on average?
They make so many backups so quickly that there is only a 0.00000000001% (I didn't count the zeros) chance of this occuring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arq's support is enough. http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/
It already supports it?
What kind of system has Amazon most likely built that takes 3-4 hours to perform retrieval? What are some examples of similar systems, and where are they installed?
What does "99.999999999% durability" mean? Does it mean they allow themselves to lose one byte per terabyte on average?
Amazon S3 is designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000,000 years....
What does "99.999999999% durability" mean? Does it mean they allow themselves to lose one byte per terabyte on average?
I think it means there is a small chance enough hard drives might fail at the same time that there happen to be no backups of those drives. They make so many backups so quickly that there is only a 0.00000000001% (I didn't count the zeros) chance of this occuring.
What would be absolutely fascinating is a pay-before-you-go storage service — data cryonics.
Paying $12 to store a gigabyte of data for 100 years seems like a pretty intriguing deal as we emerge from an era of bit rot.
I might create a script that uploads everything to Glacier and just keeps a couple of the latest backups on S3 though.
that would certainly be very nice. cperciva, what do you think?