Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

blog.sia.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 353 posts

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#311

Post by jstummbillig »

Taek wrote: post #127
kmod wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, let's dig into networking. Who pays for rereplication traffic? If you do 64-of-96 RS encoding, that means for every failure you need to transfer 64x the lost storage capacity. If you're targeting a "low individual uptime but high aggregate uptime" model this means you need to be storing data in multiple sites -- and dedicated cross-geo bandwidth is expensive. I agree that in the happy case you can use low-bandw…

Sure! First up, we don't do repairs every time one host goes down. Standard practice on the network is to wait to do a repair until a full 25% of the redundancy is missing (in 64-of-96, that would be 8 hosts offline). Then you repair all 8 at once, significantly reducing the total amount of repair traffic. But secondly, offline doesn't usually mean dead and gone, with unstable datacenters like this they are usually b…

So, is this it? Dropbox designer challenges the project broadly, gets top comment, Author refutes – and we leave it at that?

I mean this is basically the moment where I would expect every systems designer on HN coming out of the woods and crushing Sia into the ground, if there were, in fact, any ground at all to crush Sia into.

Is this actually legit? If so, where is the rejoicing? What am I missing?

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#312

Post by people42 »

For people that use Plex... Do you think that it's a good place ? If we have several TB is it cheaper to use it's own PC with (let's say) 2x10TB HDD + 2x10TB HDD backup or it's better to go online today ? When I check the price, I feel that it's always more expansive.

For my backup, it's not sync in real time but I do manual backup every 3 months. I can loose some data but I feel ok with that.

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#313

Post by dahfizz »

Legogris wrote: post #136
Taek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure! First up, we don't do repairs every time one host goes down. Standard practice on the network is to wait to do a repair until a full 25% of the redundancy is missing (in 64-of-96, that would be 8 hosts offline). Then you repair all 8 at once, significantly reducing the total amount of repair traffic. But secondly, offline doesn't usually mean dead and gone, with unstable datacenters like this they are usually b…

That sounds incredibly energy-inefficient. On average you have 12.5% of servers running but not contributing and possibly incurring load on other nodes.

87.5% efficient is not incredibly inefficient.

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#314

Post by zzzcpan »

jstummbillig wrote: post #311
Taek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure! First up, we don't do repairs every time one host goes down. Standard practice on the network is to wait to do a repair until a full 25% of the redundancy is missing (in 64-of-96, that would be 8 hosts offline). Then you repair all 8 at once, significantly reducing the total amount of repair traffic. But secondly, offline doesn't usually mean dead and gone, with unstable datacenters like this they are usually b…

So, is this it? Dropbox designer challenges the project broadly, gets top comment, Author refutes – and we leave it at that? I mean this is basically the moment where I would expect every systems designer on HN coming out of the woods and crushing Sia into the ground, if there were, in fact, any ground at all to crush Sia into. Is this actually legit? If so, where is the rejoicing? What am I missing?

No, the author's idea is ok and he's mostly right on the cost part. Configuration and the numbers are a bit off and unrealistic, you won't get such low 95% availability per site due to other economical and technological constraints, you'll get at least 99%, but probably closer to three nines per site and 64 out of 96 won't be necessary at all (something like 8 out of 12 could be enough). Dropbox designer is just ignorant, biased and conditioned to US market and environment, but appeals to authority, so people upvote his bad comment. I do storage too, on smaller scale than Dropbox of course, not in the US, but it is distributed and the cost is already lower than what you see in the title.

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#315

Post by johnchristopher »

I wish there was an easy solution that would allow me to plug an S3 or a virtual drive or whatever and mount it as a partition in my cheap 20gb VPS.

The price for additional “drive”, like 5 bucks per month for 50gb or sthg, is insane. Especially when comparing with Dropbox or Onedrive pricing (or even physical drives sold over the counter).

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#317

Post by nh2 »

Kliment wrote: post #40
pedrocr wrote: post #8

It's probably feasible to reach these levels of cost. I certainly still keep NAS in two locations because even places like hetzner don't sell lower powered machines with lots of disk space. But the build they specify doesn't have a CPU or RAM and it's using a SAS cable to connect to a SATA motherboard. Depending on the requirements of the platform they may be able to get away with non-ECC RAM, a simple APU to not nee…

Hetzner's super cheap "cloud" machines allow you to attach "block storage" volumes of whatever size you like. It's not particularly well advertised (searching for this sort of thing takes you to their dedicated storage offerings) but it's there and it's great.

Hetzner's dedicated storage servers cost ~180 $/month for 100 TB storage:

https://www.hetzner.de/dedicated-rootserver/matrix-sx?countr...

That is pretty close to the $2 per TB per month from the article (assuming the same factor 1.5 replication they have planned), while also providing 128 GB ECC RAM, enterprise disks, and 24/7 phone support.

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#318

Post by sho »

ds wrote: post #309
ds wrote: post #297

The most important thing not addressed here is demand. Last I checked (granted, this was a while ago) it simply wasnt there- Meaning if you built this rig you might only be able to rent out a small part of it. If this has changed I would be interested in hearing about it- One other thing I am not understanding is how this makes financial sense, even if the demand is there. If I am buying a rig for 4500 bucks to get 2…

So I did a quick look and it seems like the total usage of siacoin is not that large. https://siastats.info/hosts_network Only 710 TB is in use. Or about $20k worth of hardware TOTAL for the entire network, according to the above URL. Also, why is this a cryptocurrency at all? Wouldnt this business be drastically simplified by simply paying people out//letting people rent space with either USD or bitcoin?

> Also, why is this a cryptocurrency at all?

Do you even need to ask? Because they have minted a bunch of SIA coin and this is their effort to give it value out of thin air, making them all millionaires. Using someone else's currency, despite its obvious benefits, means no huge pre-minted pool under their control = no lambos.

Every single ICO project is like this.

Re: Cloud Storage for $2 per TB per month

#319

Post by NohatCoder »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #211
arcticbull wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the issue. We know that due to economy of scale and domain experience, AWS will always have the lowest cost (to Amazon) for storage -- whether that's totally-reliable storage, or sorta-reliable. If there was a demand for sorta-reliable, they'd build a sorta-reliable S3 and undercut you. Then, blockchain adds inefficiency. Therefore, it's basically impossible for any blockchain solution to have a lower total co…

> If there was a demand for sorta-reliable, they'd build a sorta-reliable S3 and undercut you. Amazon's goal is to get people to pay a premium to get access to their entire ecosystem of services. They don't optimize the price of each individual service. There's a lot of take it or leave it for their specific offerings. Look at how they used to have reduced redundancy as a cost saver, but don't anymore. If you want co…

Where did you get those prices? I can't find anything cheaper than $4 per TB month at both Google and Amazon.
Post reply on HN