3 ms·
In this case they destroyed the company instead of just saying 'space is cheap' and paying for it. It isn't free, but it's certainly cheaper than killing your
by fossuser 8y ago
In this case they destroyed the company instead of just saying 'space is cheap' and paying for it.
It isn't free, but it's certainly cheaper than killing your entire company.
- saagarjha 8y agoWell, they clearly didn’t realize that they would end up deleting their original data because they had tried to skimp on storage…
- fossuser 8y agoI think that's the point though - you never realize this kind of failure until it's too late. That's why you're better off biasing towards just paying for space and being careful with added complexity unless you really need it. Being cheap about this is just likely to lead to more bugs and cost in debugging later anyway. There are tradeoffs and exceptions, but there's a reason the saying exists.
- myhf 8y agoIt's not just about the cost of file storage. Storing information can be a legal liability. This is why businesses that deal with information need staff who are able to reason about the lifecycle of information.
- fossuser 8y agoTrue, but in this case they were storing what was the core value of the site and what the users were using the site for. It’d be different if they were just collecting all PII forever because they didn’t want to think about it.
- wstuartcl 8y ago... Not making a reference count and respecting it killed the company using one store of duplicate data, if anything, prolonged the company.