3 ms·

For the home NAS, Assume a 5-6 year lifespan for the drives so in those 10 years you will spend another $100. Of course this assumes you just need storage whil

For the home NAS, Assume a 5-6 year lifespan for the drives so in those 10 years you will spend another $100. Of course this assumes you just need storage while a NAS can provide other services allowing you to consolidate calendars, shared note-taking, password managers, etc.

llbeansandrice 3y ago
Are the economies of scale really that aggressive here? A feature-rich cloud solution ending up cheaper than self-hosted by around 10% just using napkin math?
- lukevp 3y ago
  No one would spend $450 on a NAS and then put 2 TB drives in it. My NAS was $450 and has 3 18TB drives with another slot not yet used. The drives were $250 each or so on sale. So for $750 + $450 I have an always-on home server that runs my home automation, DNS Adblock, local webservers, media server with hardware transcoding, ip cam to HomeKit adapter, a Nintendo switch homebrew e-shop, a software controller for my Omada network, a Tailscale node to access my home network from anywhere, and many more services, AND it has _36 TB_ of storage with parity so it’s safe from a single drive failure. I replicate everything important to an 18TB external drive on a PC with Backblaze Personal which gives me offsite backups of 18TB+ for $60 a year. Nothing is really competitive with this if you have a lot of data you want to keep (my wife has a lot of video content for her work.)
  - datadrivenangel 3y ago
    This also adds to the cost. You start looking at 1-2k in equipment minimum for a good amount of space, and it adds up fast. Best way to get that more storage, but it's not cheap.
- datadrivenangel 3y ago
  If you go cheap, you could probably cut the cost of self-hosting in half in terms of obvious cost. The cheaper you go the higher the maintenance tends to be though, so it may not be a real win.

3 ms·

For the home NAS, Assume a 5-6 year lifespan for the drives so in those 10 years you will spend another $100. Of course this assumes you just need storage whil

by mortify 3y ago

llbeansandrice 3y ago
Are the economies of scale really that aggressive here? A feature-rich cloud solution ending up cheaper than self-hosted by around 10% just using napkin math?
- lukevp 3y ago
  No one would spend $450 on a NAS and then put 2 TB drives in it. My NAS was $450 and has 3 18TB drives with another slot not yet used. The drives were $250 each or so on sale. So for $750 + $450 I have an always-on home server that runs my home automation, DNS Adblock, local webservers, media server with hardware transcoding, ip cam to HomeKit adapter, a Nintendo switch homebrew e-shop, a software controller for my Omada network, a Tailscale node to access my home network from anywhere, and many more services, AND it has _36 TB_ of storage with parity so it’s safe from a single drive failure. I replicate everything important to an 18TB external drive on a PC with Backblaze Personal which gives me offsite backups of 18TB+ for $60 a year. Nothing is really competitive with this if you have a lot of data you want to keep (my wife has a lot of video content for her work.)
  - datadrivenangel 3y ago
    This also adds to the cost. You start looking at 1-2k in equipment minimum for a good amount of space, and it adds up fast. Best way to get that more storage, but it's not cheap.
- datadrivenangel 3y ago
  If you go cheap, you could probably cut the cost of self-hosting in half in terms of obvious cost. The cheaper you go the higher the maintenance tends to be though, so it may not be a real win.