3 ms·
Having backups in two places could easily triple the hosting costs. The question is what costs more. Eg. Losing data vs backup costs.
by z3t4 7y ago
Having backups in two places could easily triple the hosting costs. The question is what costs more. Eg. Losing data vs backup costs.
- h3throw 7y agoThat seems like an odd cost increase. How do you figure it would lead to a tripling of op costs?
- z3t4 7y agoLets say you have 100 TB of data, plus two backups, you are now paying for 300 TB of data.
- Cerium 7y agoI would say that it doubles the cost of backups, but using this math, we start with one copy plus one backup, and add a second backup; that means only a 50% increase.
- Dylan16807 7y agoAlso a secondary backup doesn't need to be in hot storage. Coldline or Glacier or similar can easily be a quarter of the price per GB.
- SteveNuts 7y agoAs a startup, generally your secondary backup could literally be an external hard drive from best buy, or an infrequent access S3 bucket (or hell, even Glacier). No excuse, especially when "dealing with Fortune 500 companies".
- itslennysfault 7y agoTriple hosting costs? Literally just push a postgres dump to S3 (or any other storage provider) once a night as a "just in case something stupid happens with my primary cloud provider". It'd take a couple hours tops to set up and cost next to nothing.
- _bxg1 7y agoMost of the costs aren't from storage space, but compute power. We aren't talking about duplicating the whole infrastructure, just backing up the data. Disk space is dirt cheap. Also, by "two places" I meant the live DB and one backup that's somewhere completely different. My wording may have been confusing.
- z3t4 7y agoThey did have backups. Thats why I asumed you meant double backups. If you do cold storage you should have 3 copies due to possible corruptions. Sure tape drives are cheap but someone also have to run and check the backups.