4 ms·

Obvious copyright & TOS issues aside, how does this compare to the S3 bill?

na85 5y ago
Good question. It's about $0.023 per GB per month for a US East Coast instance, so some $1700/mo for 75TB. Plus you don't really control the data if it's on someone else's computer so there's a potential opportunity cost there as well.
- OkGoDoIt 5y ago
  On the other hand the data would be much more reliable in that scenario. A 10 GB consumer hard drive is likely to fail or at least corrupt some data at some point, and if you’re going to go with multiple redundancies then your cost goes up. But yeah, it’s all kind of moot. I had AWS suspend my account once because someone complained they found a copyrighted image on one of my servers. If it’s in the cloud, you don’t really control it.
  - na85 5y ago
    You can buy "datacenter-grade" drives from WD on their website, which are presumably of higher quality. Either way, though, this is going to cost five figures, annually, to store in S3. For half of one year of S3 you can have a fairly robust RAID setup, maybe replace 1 drive every two years, and enjoy the data any time you want it without fees-as-a-service. High five for avoiding AWS!
  - justinclift 5y ago
    > I had AWS suspend my account once because someone complained they found a copyrighted image on one of my servers. If it’s in the cloud, you don’t really control it. Considering the material here, that's more likely to happen than not. So, unlikely to be "much more reliable" for this particular scenario. ;)
- kylegordon 5y ago
  Half that if you use Infrequent Access, reduce it more if you do something sensible with Glacier policies - it is an archive after all. You'd need to consider method costs, egress, etc on top of all that, to be fair
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  Plus ~$7k to transfer it outside of AWS
young_unixer 5y ago
Why not do it from home? Downloading 20TB would take me 74.074 hours @ 600 mbps. Downloading 75TB would take 277,7 hours. Both sound reasonable. Am I missing something?

na85 5y ago

Good question. It's about $0.023 per GB per month for a US East Coast instance, so some $1700/mo for 75TB. Plus you don't really control the data if it's on someone else's computer so there's a potential opportunity cost there as well.

OkGoDoIt 5y ago
On the other hand the data would be much more reliable in that scenario. A 10 GB consumer hard drive is likely to fail or at least corrupt some data at some point, and if you’re going to go with multiple redundancies then your cost goes up. But yeah, it’s all kind of moot. I had AWS suspend my account once because someone complained they found a copyrighted image on one of my servers. If it’s in the cloud, you don’t really control it.
- na85 5y ago
  You can buy "datacenter-grade" drives from WD on their website, which are presumably of higher quality. Either way, though, this is going to cost five figures, annually, to store in S3. For half of one year of S3 you can have a fairly robust RAID setup, maybe replace 1 drive every two years, and enjoy the data any time you want it without fees-as-a-service. High five for avoiding AWS!
- justinclift 5y ago
  > I had AWS suspend my account once because someone complained they found a copyrighted image on one of my servers. If it’s in the cloud, you don’t really control it. Considering the material here, that's more likely to happen than not. So, unlikely to be "much more reliable" for this particular scenario. ;)
kylegordon 5y ago
Half that if you use Infrequent Access, reduce it more if you do something sensible with Glacier policies - it is an archive after all. You'd need to consider method costs, egress, etc on top of all that, to be fair
isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
Plus ~$7k to transfer it outside of AWS

young_unixer 5y ago

Why not do it from home? Downloading 20TB would take me 74.074 hours @ 600 mbps. Downloading 75TB would take 277,7 hours. Both sound reasonable. Am I missing something?