3 ms·
When you says Sia is reliable, do you mean it could be reliable if hypothetical X, Y, and Z things happen? Because according to the homepage (sia.tech) there a
by ac29 7y ago
When you says Sia is reliable, do you mean it could be reliable if hypothetical X, Y, and Z things happen?
Because according to the homepage (sia.tech) there are only 895 hosts storing a total of 206TB right now, which is a very, very small amount. Backblaze, a relatively small player as compared to the big cloud providers has 1.1 million TB of raw capacity as of last year (redundancy reduces the available capacity, but still) [0].
[0] https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2019/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2019/
- Ajedi32 7y agoBy reliable in this context I mean robust against hardware failure. (Including the failure of entire storage sites.) The OP explains the math and associated assumptions for how they derived that "99.9999%" figure, and acknowledges that since the calculated chance of data loss due to hardware failure is so infinitesimally small, other failure modes outside of what they modeled are likely to dominate. As for the relatively small number of hosts at present, 895 is more than enough for 10-of-30 redundancy to work "as advertised". You really only need 30 hosts technically. The bigger issue I think is the relative immaturity of the software. Sia is still pretty new compared to most other data storage systems; and although I've never heard of any software bugs in Sia resulting in data loss, that doesn't mean such a bug will never be discovered. Be cautious, keep backups, and never rely on any single storage medium to store your data.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]