3 ms·
why assume if they are publishing annual failure rates as well as the level of redundancy? Your assumptions are wrong.
by xchaotic 7y ago
why assume if they are publishing annual failure rates as well as the level of redundancy? Your assumptions are wrong.
- Dylan16807 7y agoWhich assumptions? They published that they use 17:20 erasure coding. Have they published exactly how much overhead they get from their filesystem? I don't think it's unreasonable to blindly guess 5% for that. The published drive failure rates are about one drive per year per 60 drive vault, which is exactly what I said. And we can estimate the labor cost of replacing that drive as tiny. What we don't know is the cost of power, networking, and physical space for the server. So I picked $400 (minus the drive fraction) per month as a nice round "this is double what I can find for many colocation offers, but still avoids losing money" number.