3 ms·
Agreed. It'd be faster, but that's not really what we're looking for- We want to get the cost per GB to be as low as humanly possible, while maintaining at leas
by e1ven 16y ago
Agreed. It'd be faster, but that's not really what we're looking for- We want to get the cost per GB to be as low as humanly possible, while maintaining at least an illusion of reliability.
- kaerast 16y agoSo store it all on one of those fake Chinese USB drives. That gives a nice illusion, and is incredibly cheap... Alternatively we could consider what level of reliability you want and how that will be tested.
- e1ven 16y agoIn my calculations I was doing elsewhere in the thread, I was assuming 1 drive out of 4 would be for redundancy. There's nothing on these drives that's irreplaceable, and we have system-level redundancy.