331–340 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible that there could be non-obvious innovations in how to save money with a low reliability threshold, which Amazon might not be able to effortlessly copy.
It should also be noted that you can get S3 storage for $1/TB/month already if you use the Glacier Deep Archive storage class.
Definitely not worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spinning iron doesnt like start/stop cycles. Server drives go thru very few in their entire life for that very reason.
These are ssd’s.
I expected this title to be about https://www.scaleway.com/en/c14-cold-storage/ which already offers exactly that, Cloud storage for $2 per TB per month.
Sia isn’t cold storage.
(Does anyone know how long Scaleway takes in practice? They claim minutes but I haven't used them yet.)
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…
If instead they decide it's the cash cow, then it wouldn't be a stretch to predict that they price it a bit above the competition. The customer has the impression that they can amortize the cost across the other value-adds in the ecosystem. Whether the customer is right or not barely matters to Amazon from a purely financial aspect. All that matters is that they believe it to be true.
There's also the short-term versus the long term strategy. Short term they could do either and I wouldn't be surprised. Long term, I think I would expect the latter.
Top of Hacker News and there's nothing clickable above the fold that takes me to the SIA website. Content marketers and technical marketers - don't miss the opportunity on Medium and other platforms to at VERY LEAST link to your homepage in the first section. In fact that is at the top of this awesome piece of content marketing is a "Sign Up" button for Medium . . .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should also be noted that you can get S3 storage for $1/TB/month already if you use the Glacier Deep Archive storage class.
Not really. Have you ever done the maths on what it costs to recover 1TB in a recovery situation. Definitely not worth it.
To get out of Amazon entirely, they definitely want to gouge you, but it's not the end of the world. If $24 a year is an acceptable storage price, then Snowball export costing somewhere around $36/TB in bulk isn't too awful. (And if you don't have enough data to fill up a snowball, you can probably smuggle it out through lightsail.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage can be far cheaper when decentralized. Sending data over the Atlantic is super expensive compared to LAN networking. Almost all content providers peer with ISP's with onsite hardware. But why stop there, put the "racks" in ppl's basements. Data storage is very compact now a days, you can probably fit 100 TB is a shoe-box.
that'd need trust that they won't run off with your drives, their basement won't get flooded, there aren't power outages often, they have good protections against surges and whatnot... which at ANY datacenter, is automatically included ;)
Which is not that hard to do.
And all those protections in a datacenter are far from free.
I work in telecom/datacenter infrastructure and this is fanciful. The whole way they take the wattage load of one machine and then hand wave away all of the rest of the costs of either building and running a datacenter, or paying ongoing monthly colocation costs... Is just scary. I truly don't mean to offend anyone but this looks like a bunch of enthusiastic dilettantes. Generators? UPS? Cooling costs? Square footage…
They're not talking about a datacenter. Datacenters need to be reliable. Sia storage pools don't, because security and reliability is achieved at the global network level, not at the level of individual systems or storage pools. 95% reliability means you can be down for two whole weeks out of every year and still be well within acceptable uptime requirements. Generators? Who needs those? Just wait for the power to co…
And yet Sia is about half the cost of Backblaze (i.e. not much savings).
Hard to imagine situations where this is a good trade-off.
I worked on the design of Dropbox's exabyte-scale storage system, and from that experience I can say that these numbers are all extremely optimistic, even with their "you can do it cheaper if you only target 95% uptime" caveat. Networking is much more expensive, labor is much more expensive, space is much more expensive, depreciation is faster than they say, etc etc. I don't think the authors have ever done any actua…
> Hard drives are a surprisingly low percentage of the cost of a storage system THIS! There's no use of a 2TB storage if you can't upload/download this amount each month