3 ms·
I'm surprised there aren't any services selling raw storage space. i.e. no RAID or other redundancy, no doubling as a static web-server, just a bunch of disks.
by danohuiginn 15y ago
I'm surprised there aren't any services selling raw storage space. i.e. no RAID or other redundancy, no doubling as a static web-server, just a bunch of disks.
So people (myself included) buy physical HDDs for local backup -- simply because every online alternative jacks up the price by maintaining 3+ copies and keeping everything permanently online.
- wmf 15y agoPeople would lose data and then blame the provider, creating nothing but bad PR.
- danohuiginn 15y ago"if we lose your data, we'll pay you $X compensation" I'm pretty sure you can find an X which won't cost too much, and will get most of the complaints off your back
- e1ven 15y agoThe closest equiv. would be Amazon's EBS, but they're pricing on this is through the roof. Storing 70TB would be 8K/month, without ANY bandwidth fees..
- fragmede 15y agoThat's a curious idea. How would you access the raw storage? iSCSI? And then you run your own RAID on top? What's the advantage to you? It's ever so slightly cheaper? Backblaze (no affiliation) is $5/month or $50/yr. That's pretty hard to beat. Also, running a static web-server is fairly trivial to setup these days, what would a service not running a static web-server do/have? Every online alternative has a vested interest in both A. saving money, and B. not losing your data. As much as you trust a business to perform B adequately, you implicitly trust it to perform A at least as well.
- corin_ 15y agoI need data backup on a personal level rather than for business reasons, and I love what Backblaze offer... except that for my data and with my ~50kbps upload speed, it would take about five years to upload it all to their servers.