4 ms·
Redundancy is kind of meaningless unless if you have sufficient diversity. If all your replicas are located on the same rack, you're screwed if there is a minor
by Aunche 7y ago
Redundancy is kind of meaningless unless if you have sufficient diversity. If all your replicas are located on the same rack, you're screwed if there is a minor disaster like a sprinkler going off.
- im3w1l 7y agoYou will be able to boast of 99.9999% uptime up until that sprinkler goes of. And with luck, it could be decades until it does.
- teknopurge 7y agoThis is why the post is a red-herring. You cannot use storage if you cannot get to it. Talking about the price of disk space/mth is absolutely useless without talking about the bandwidth required to use it, which means, if you want to go big-boys-math, 95% bandwidth and peering agreement pricing. That $1.50 with all the network chatter between hosts for replication/repair/etc., not to mention actually _downloading_ of the data from the Sia network will take that $1.50/TB/mth to $70/TB/mth. Talking about the disk-space pricing is, IMO, disingenuous. Talk about the math for an all-in use-case of the service. I appreciate what the OP is going for, however, hand-waving around uncomfortable critical items like bandwidth cost for the Sia network is not a good look.
- Dylan16807 7y ago> not to mention actually _downloading_ of the data from the Sia network will take that $1.50/TB/mth to $70/TB/mth You really need to back that math up. Here's my math: 10mbps is over 3TB per month at max utilization, so let's say it's good enough for either 2TB throughput with semi-even use, or 1TB throughput if the use is really focused on part of the day. When buying transit in bulk in the US, Google tells me that 10mbps was very roughly $8.50 a month in 2017, $4.50 a month in 2018, and $2.50 a month in 2019. Are you expecting the data to be rebuilt every single day or something?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]