4 ms·
My startup is in the same space as them and I can promise you that running our own storage is much cheaper. Azure and AWS run around 7K per month for 100tb. Wh
by keithwarren 13y ago
My startup is in the same space as them and I can promise you that running our own storage is much cheaper. Azure and AWS run around 7K per month for 100tb.
When you factor redundacy I need to buy 200tb, factor in other server infrastructure with the cost of a 4TB drive running around 180 and I can spend 15K to buy 200TB of storage.
Put another way, we can own twice the storage capacity (or 1x mirrored) for roughly 2 months of S3 storage.
- parasubvert 13y agoS3 is already redundant - it virtually guarantees no data loss and mirrors your storage across multiple data centres. You're also completely ignoring the costs of hosting this stuff, the computers they're in, redundant network switches, failed disks over time, and administration costs to rack and stack failed drives plus all the risk associated with your redundancy going wrong. You're also assuming your hard drives will be able to handle the performance needs. Not to mention this is one site - no DR. So, Amazon S3 at $7.5k a month for 100 TB is $90k annually with RIDICULOUSLY high redundancy and known performance. Reduce it to 99.99% availability (about what your setup with dual drives might be if you run it well) and you're at $60k annually. You really are going to host fast, reliable 100 TB for under $60k? Betting your business on it?