4 ms·
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Amazon S3. You will definitely plunk down a few bucks to store 40TB there, but it's a ready-made solution to your prob
by gamache 17y ago
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Amazon S3. You will definitely plunk down a few bucks to store 40TB there, but it's a ready-made solution to your problem.
Edit: OK, now I see that S3 was suggested but vetoed. Unwise decision, in my opinion. If you need data security, encrypt your data.
- ErrantX 17y agoBandwidth costs would probably kill us TBH. Ultimately we will have 20,000 clients connecting at least 3 times a week and uploading once a fortnight. It adds up to about 500TB of new data a year. S3 is great for us atm but the work to encrypt it is too much because the cost doesnt scale for us long term. Potentially within a couple of years we will be spending 1/2 a million on bandwith and 1/2 a million on storage - which will continue upwards :) Were facing the Google model: commodity hardware on a cheap T1 connection :)