4 ms·
This is the part that I have trouble wrapping my head around. If you're adding 40 PB of photos per day, and if you can somehow get say $0.01/GB [1] then that's
by mikegioia 11y ago
This is the part that I have trouble wrapping my head around. If you're adding 40 PB of photos per day, and if you can somehow get say $0.01/GB [1] then that's adding $400,000 per day in storage costs.
Facebook doesn't/can't/won't delete photos so how on earth is this sustainable? After 10-20 years wouldn't hosting costs just be too high to function?
[1] Aaverage cost per GB in 2014 was $0.03: http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-cost-of-hard-drive-storage/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-cost-of-hard-drive-sto...
- daigoba66 11y agoAt scale it must get cheaper. For example AWS Glacier is only $0.007 per GB ignoring bandwidth.
- reitzensteinm 11y agoPer month.
- ra1n85 11y agoGlacier wouldn't fit this model, as it's based on access frequency and not storage volume.
- CamatHN 11y agoThats 400k*365 = 146 million per year extra in storage costs. Considering FB's market cap/market worth is 265 Billion with $13B in annual revenue and photos is part of its core service, that amount of extra cost in negligible to their business. Not hard to increase those revenues by at least 3% annually which would bring another $400m a year, easily covering any extra storage costs from photos.
- mikegioia 11y agoYea I agree, but this is also just photos.